/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 138 For each situation described, in... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

For each situation described, indicate whether it makes more sense to use a relatively large significance level (such as \(\alpha=0.10\) ) or a relatively small significance level (such as \(\alpha=0.01\) ). A pharmaceutical company is testing to see whether its new drug is significantly better than the existing drug on the market. It is more expensive than the existing drug. Which significance level would the company prefer? Which significance level would the consumer prefer?

Short Answer

Expert verified
The pharmaceutical company would prefer a larger significance level (such as \(\alpha = 0.10\)) because it increases the chances of confirming their claim that the new drug is better. On the contrary, the consumer would prefer a smaller significance level (such as \(\alpha = 0.01\)) to minimize the risk of believing that the new (and more expensive) drug is better when it might not be.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the role of significance level

Statistically, the significance level, also denoted as \(\alpha\), is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true. This is known as a false positive or Type I error. A smaller value of \(\alpha\) means fewer chances of making a type I error, whereas a larger value of \(\alpha\) makes it easier to reject the null hypothesis, hence increasing the chances of a type I error.
02

Analyze the pharmaceutical company's position

The pharmaceutical company wants to prove that the new drug is significantly better. So, they would prefer the larger significance level of \(\alpha = 0.10\), which increases the chances of them rejecting the null hypothesis (that the new drug is not better). They would run the risk of a Type I error (false positive), i.e., believing the new drug is better, when it actually is not.
03

Analyze the consumer's position

On the other hand, consumers would prefer a more cautious approach because they would want to minimize the risk of believing the new drug is better when it actually isn't, especially given the new drug is more expensive. Therefore, they would prefer the smaller significance level of \(\alpha = 0.01\).

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Type I Error
In hypothesis testing, a Type I error is a mistake that occurs when the null hypothesis is incorrectly rejected. This means you are claiming there's an effect or a difference when, in fact, there isn’t one. It’s like sounding a false alarm. The null hypothesis typically represents a status quo or a baseline situation, and rejecting it based on inconclusive evidence leads to this error.

A Type I error is directly linked to the significance level, denoted by \(\alpha\). The significance level represents the probability of making a Type I error. For instance, a significance level of \(\alpha = 0.05\) means there's a 5% risk of concluding that the observed effect is real when it’s actually due to random chance.

It's essential to choose an appropriate significance level to manage the risk of a Type I error, especially in fields where these consequences matter greatly, like pharmaceutical trials and medical testing.
  • A higher \(\alpha\) increases the chance of making a Type I error.
  • A lower \(\alpha\) reduces the risk, offering more stringent rejection criteria.
By understanding this concept, researchers can balance the risks and benefits of their tests, focusing on limiting false positives.
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis testing is a statistical method used to decide whether there is enough evidence to reject a supposed claim (the null hypothesis) in favor of an alternative hypothesis. This process is akin to a trial where evidence is weighed to support or refute a statement.

The key steps include:
  • Setting up two mutually exclusive hypotheses—the null hypothesis (usually that there is no effect) and the alternative hypothesis (that there is an effect).
  • Determining a significance level \(\alpha\), which defines the threshold for considering evidence strong enough to reject the null hypothesis.
  • Conducting an experiment and calculating a p-value, which indicates the probability of observing results at least as extreme as those observed, assuming the null hypothesis is true.
  • Comparing the p-value to the significance level to make a decision.
If the p-value is lower than \(\alpha\), the null hypothesis is rejected, suggesting the alternative hypothesis may be true. Hypothesis testing is widely applied in various fields, including scientific research, quality control, and, notably, pharmaceutical trials, where it helps determine the efficacy and safety of new treatments.
Pharmaceutical Trials
Pharmaceutical trials are rigorous studies conducted to evaluate the effects, risks, and benefits of new drugs. They are crucial for developing new treatments and ensuring they are safe and effective for patient use.

These trials follow a structured process, often divided into phases:
  • Phase I: Tests new drugs on a small group for safety, dosage, and side effects.
  • Phase II: Focuses on efficacy and side effects, involving more participants.
  • Phase III: Confirms effectiveness, compares with existing treatments, monitoring side effects across larger populations.
  • Phase IV: Post-marketing studies, which provide additional information after approval.
Significance levels in these trials are critical because they help determine the reliability of results. A lower \(\alpha\), such as \(\alpha = 0.01\), is often preferred by consumers due to the serious consequences of adopting an ineffective drug. However, companies might prefer a higher significance level like \(\alpha = 0.10\) to demonstrate benefits more readily. Both perspectives aim to balance patient safety with the practicalities of drug approval, highlighting careful consideration of statistical errors and public health.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Match the four \(\mathrm{p}\) -values with the appropriate conclusion: (a) The evidence against the null hypothesis is significant, but only at the \(10 \%\) level. (b) The evidence against the null and in favor of the alternative is very strong. (c) There is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, even at the \(10 \%\) level. (d) The result is significant at a \(5 \%\) level but not at a \(1 \%\) level. I. 0.00008 II. 0.0571 III. 0.0368 IV. \(\quad 0.1753\)

Translating Information to Other Significance Levels Suppose in a two-tailed test of \(H_{0}: \rho=0\) vs \(H_{a}: \rho \neq 0,\) we reject \(H_{0}\) when using a \(5 \%\) significance level. Which of the conclusions below (if any) would also definitely be valid for the same data? Explain your reasoning in each case. (a) Reject \(H_{0}: \rho=0\) in favor of \(H_{a}: \rho \neq 0\) at a \(1 \%\) significance level. (b) Reject \(H_{0}: \rho=0\) in favor of \(H_{a}: \rho \neq 0\) at a \(10 \%\) significance level. (c) Reject \(H_{0}: \rho=0\) in favor of the one-tail alternative, \(H_{a}: \rho>0,\) at a \(5 \%\) significance level, assuming the sample correlation is positive.

Flying Home for the Holidays, On Time In Exercise 4.115 on page \(302,\) we compared the average difference between actual and scheduled arrival times for December flights on two major airlines: Delta and United. Suppose now that we are only interested in the proportion of flights arriving more than 30 minutes after the scheduled time. Of the 1,000 Delta flights, 67 arrived more than 30 minutes late, and of the 1,000 United flights, 160 arrived more than 30 minutes late. We are testing to see if this provides evidence to conclude that the proportion of flights that are over 30 minutes late is different between flying United or Delta. (a) State the null and alternative hypothesis. (b) What statistic will be recorded for each of the simulated samples to create the randomization distribution? What is the value of that statistic for the observed sample? (c) Use StatKey or other technology to create a randomization distribution. Estimate the p-value for the observed statistic found in part (b). (d) At a significance level of \(\alpha=0.01\), what is the conclusion of the test? Interpret in context. (e) Now assume we had only collected samples of size \(75,\) but got essentially the same proportions (5/75 late flights for Delta and \(12 / 75\) late flights for United). Repeating steps (b) through (d) on these smaller samples, do you come to the same conclusion?

By some accounts, the first formal hypothesis test to use statistics involved the claim of a lady tasting tea. \({ }^{11}\) In the 1920 's Muriel Bristol- Roach, a British biological scientist, was at a tea party where she claimed to be able to tell whether milk was poured into a cup before or after the tea. R.A. Fisher, an eminent statistician, was also attending the party. As a natural skeptic, Fisher assumed that Muriel had no ability to distinguish whether the milk or tea was poured first, and decided to test her claim. An experiment was designed in which Muriel would be presented with some cups of tea with the milk poured first, and some cups with the tea poured first. (a) In plain English (no symbols), describe the null and alternative hypotheses for this scenario. (b) Let \(p\) be the true proportion of times Muriel can guess correctly. State the null and alternative hypothesis in terms of \(p\).

Do iPads Help Kindergartners Learn: A Series of Tests Exercise 4.147 introduces a study in which half of the kindergarten classes in a school district are randomly assigned to receive iPads. We learn that the results are significant at the \(5 \%\) level (the mean for the iPad group is significantly higher than for the control group) for the results on the HRSIW subtest. In fact, the HRSIW subtest was one of 10 subtests and the results were not significant for the other 9 tests. Explain, using the problem of multiple tests, why we might want to hesitate before we run out to buy iPads for all kindergartners based on the results of this study.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.