Solutions Manual To Accompany Elementary Statistics Using Excel 4th Edition 0321564960

Solutions Manual to accompany Elementary
Statistics Using Excel 4th edition 0321564960
To download the complete and accurate content document, go to:

https://testbankbell.com/download/solutions-manual-to-accompany-elementary-statisti
cs-using-excel-4th-edition-0321564960/
Solutions Manual to accompany Elementary Statistics Using Excel 4th edition 0321564960
Chapter 8
Hypothesis Testing
8-2 Basics of Hypothesis Testing
1. Given the large sample size and the fact that 20% is so much less than 50%, it is apparent that
any confidence interval for the proportion of bosses that are good communicators would fall
entirely below 50%. Assuming the magazine has properly interpreted the survey, the results
appear to support the claim that “less than 50% of bosses are good communicators” but not
necessarily that “less than 50% of the people believe that bosses are good communicators” –
those are two different statements that should not be confused.
Given that the responders constitute a voluntary response sample, and not a random sample,
it is likely that they are not representative of the population and consist largely of people with
strong feelings on and/or a personal interest in the topic. The results should not be used to
support the stated claim.
2. Since the P-value gives the probability of obtaining the observed result or more extreme results
by chance alone, the smallest p-value of 0.001 gives the strongest evidence for the alternative
hypothesis and would be the preferred result.
3. No. Since the claim that the mean is equal to a specific value must be the null hypothesis, the
only possible conclusions are to reject that claim or to fail to reject that claim. Hypothesis
testing cannot be used to support a claim that a parameter is equal to a particular value.
4. No. Sample data that is not consistent with a claim cannot be used to support that claim. In
particular, no sample proportion less than 0.5 can ever be used to support a claim that the
population proportion is greater than 0.5.
5. If the claim were not true, and p ≤ 0.5, then getting 90 heads in a sample of 100 tosses would
be an unusual event. There is sufficient evidence to support the claim.
6. If the claim were not true, and p ≤ 0.35, then getting 0.955(2480) = 2368 households with
telephones in a sample of 2480 households would be an unusual event. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim.
7. If the claim were not true, and µ ≥ 75, then getting a mean pulse rate of 74.4 in a sample of
students would not be an unusual event. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim.
8. If the claim were not true, and σ ≥ 15, then getting a standard deviation of 14.8 in a sample of
40 movie patrons would be not an unusual event. There is not sufficient evidence to support
the claim.
9. original claim: µ > $60,000
Ho: µ = $60,000
H1: µ > $60,000
10. original claim: p = 0.20
Ho: p = 0.20
H1: p ≠ 0.20
Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters
Basics of Hypothesis Testing SECTION 8-2 239
11. original claim: σ = 0.62 °F

Ho: σ = 0.62 °F
H1: σ ≠ 0.62 °F
12. original claim: p > 0.5
Ho: p = 0.5
H1: p > 0.5
13. original claim: σ < 40 seconds
Ho: σ = 40 seconds
H1: σ < 40 seconds
14. original claim: σ = 0.66 cm
Ho: σ = 0.66 cm
H1: σ ≠ 0.66 cm
Ho: p = 0.80
H1: p ≠ 0.80
16. original claim: µ < 1 kg
Ho: µ = 1 kg
H1: µ < 1 kg
17. Two-tailed test; place α/2 = 0.005 in each tail.
Use A = 1–α/2 = 1–0.0050 = 0.9950 and z = 2.575.
critical values: ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
Excel: NORMSINV(0.995) = 2.576
Use A = 1–α/2 = 1–0.0500 = 0.9500 and z = 1.645.
19. Right-tailed test; place α = 0.02 in the upper tail.
Use A = 1–α = 1–0.000 = 0.9800 [closest entry = 0.9798] and z = 2.05.
critical value: +zα = +z0.02 = +2.05
20. Left-tailed test; place α = 0.10 in the lower tail.
Use A = α = 0.1000 [closest entry = 0.1003] and z = -1.28.
critical value: -zα = -z0.10 = -1.28 [ or -1.282 from the “large” row of the t table]
Excel: NORMSINV(0.10) = -1.282
Use A = 1–α/2 = 1–0.0250 = 0.9750 and z = 1.96.
22. Right-tailed test; place α = 0.01 in the upper tail.
Use A = 1–α = 1–0.0100 = 0.9900 [closest entry = 0.9901] and z = 2.33.
critical value: +zα = +z0.01 = +2.33 [ or 2.326 from the “large” row of the t table]

240 CHAPTER 8 Hypothesis Testing
23. Left-tailed test; place α = 0.005 in the lower tail.

Use A = α = 0.0050 and z = -2.575.
critical value: -zα = -z0.005 = -2.575
Excel: NORMSINV(0.005) = -2.576
Use A = 1–α/2 = 1–0.0025 = 0.9975 and z = 2.81.
25. p̂ = x/n = 152/580 = 0.262
z p̂ = ( p̂ – p)/ pq/n
= (0.262 – 0.250)/ (0.25)(0.75)/580 = 0.012/0.0180 = 0.67
26. p̂ = x/n = 462/1005 = 0.460

z p̂ = ( p̂ – p)/ pq/n
= (0.460 – 0.500)/ (0.50)(0.50)/1005 = -0.040/0.0158 = -2.56
27. p̂ = x/n = 314/1122 = 0.280

z p̂ = ( p̂ – p)/ pq/n
= (0.280 – 0.250)/ (0.25)(0.75)/1122 = 0.030/0.0129 = 2.31
28. p̂ = x/n = 870/1012 = 0.860

z p̂ = ( p̂ – p)/ pq/n
= (0.860 – 0.750)/ (0.75)(0.25)/1012 = 0.110/0.0136 = 8.06
29. P-value
= P(z<-1.25)
= 0.1056
Since 0.1056 > 0.05, fail to reject Ho.
Excel: NORMSDIST(-1.25) = 0.1056
0.1056
<-----------
-1.25 0 Z
30. P-value
= P(z>2.50)
= 1 – 0.9938
= 0.0062
Since 0.0062 < 0.05, reject Ho.
Excel: 1 – NORMSDIST(2.50) = 0.0062
0.9938
<--------------------------------
0 2.50 Z

31. P-value
= 2·P(z>1.75) <--------------------------------|
0.9599
= 2·[1 – 0.9599]
= 2·[0.0401]
= 0.0802
Excel: 2*(1 – NORMSDIST(1.75)) = 0.0801
-1.75 0 1.75 Z
32. P-value
= 2·P(z<-0.55)
= 2·(0.2912)
= 0.5824
Excel: 2* NORMSDIST(-0.55) = 0.5823
0.2912
<-----------
-0.55 0 0.55 Z
33. P-value
= 2·P(z<-2.75)
= 2·(0030)
= 0.0060
Excel: 2* NORMSDIST(-2.75) = 0.0060 0.0030
<-----------
0.707 ^
p
-2.75 0 2.75 Z
34. P-value
= 2·P(z>0.35) <--------------------------------|
0.6368
= 2·[1 – 0.6368]
= 2·[0.3632]
= 0.7264
Excel: 2*(1 – NORMSDIST(0.35)) = 0.7263
0.75 ^
p
-0.35 0 0.35 Z
35. P-value <--------------------------------|

= P(z>2.30) 0.9893
= 1 – 0.9893
= 0.0107
Excel: 1 – NORMSDIST(2.30) = 0.0107
0.25 ^
p
0 2.30 Z

36. P-value
= P(z<-2.95)
= 0.0016
Excel: NORMSDIST(-2.95) = 0.0016
0.0016
<-----------
0.777 ^
p
-2.95 0 Z
37. There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the percentage of blue M&M’s is greater than
5%.
38. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the percentage of on-time U.S. airline flights is
less than 75%.
39. There is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the percentage of Americans who know
their credit score is equal to 20%.
40. There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the percentage of Americans who believe in
heaven is equal to 90%.
Ho: p = 0.41
type I error: rejecting Ho when Ho is actually true
rejecting the claim that the percentage of non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke is
41% when that percentage actually is 41%
type II error: failing to reject Ho when H1 is actually true
failing to reject the claim that the percentage of non-smokers exposed to secondhand
smoke is 41% what that percentage is actually different from 41%
Ho: p = 0.20
rejecting the claim that the percentage of Americans who believe that life exists only on
earth is 20% when that percentage actually is 20%
failing to reject the claim that the percentage of Americans who believe that life exists only
on earth is 20% when that percentage is actually different from 20%
Ho: p = 0.70
rejecting the claim that the percentage of college students who use alcohol is 70% when
that percentage actually is 70%
failing to reject the claim that the percentage of college students who use alcohol is 70%
when that percentage is actually greater than 70%

44. original claim: p < 0.60

Ho: p = 0.60
rejecting the claim that the percentage of households with at least two cell phones is 60%
when that percentage actually is 60%
failing to reject the claim that the percentage of households with at least two cell phones is
is 60% when that percentage is actually less than 60%
45. a. Not necessarily. Being 95% confident of a conclusion (i.e., rejecting the null hypothesis at
the 0.05 level of significance) does not guarantee being 99% confident of that same
conclusion (i.e., rejecting the null hypothesis at the 0.01 level of significance). Rejecting at
the 0.01 level requires more evidence (i.e. a larger difference between the null hypothesis
and the observed data) than rejecting at the 0.05 level. More simply: Rejection at the 0.05
level of significance means that the observed sample result was among the most extreme 5%
of the possible results, but not necessarily among the most extreme 1% of the possible
results as required for rejection at the 0.01 level of significance.
b. Yes. Being 99% confident of a conclusion (i.e., rejecting the null hypothesis at the 0.01
level of significance) guarantees being 95% confident of that same conclusion (i.e., rejecting
the null hypothesis at the 0.05 level of significance). Rejecting at the 0.05 level requires less
evidence (i.e. a smaller difference between the null hypothesis and the observed data) than
rejecting at the 0.01 level. More simply, rejection at the 0.01 level of significance means
that the observed sample result was among the most extreme 1% of the possible results, and
so it must be included among the most extreme 5% of the possible results as required for
rejection at the 0.05 level of significance.
46. In general, the power of a test is the probability of correctly rejecting the hull hypothesis when
some specified alternative is actually correct. In this context, a power of 0.96 indicates that
when the true percentage of Chantix users who experience abdominal pain is actually 18% the
test has a 96% probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis that the percentage is 8%
in order to conclude that the percentage is greater than 8%.
47. The test of hypothesis is given below
and illustrated by the figure at the right.
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p > 0.50
α = 0.05
C.V. z = zα = 1.645
The c corresponding to z = 1.645 is
found by solving zc = (c-p)/ pq/n 0.05
for c as follows:
0.50 c ^
p
c = p + zc· pq/n 0 1.645 Z
= 0.50 + (1.645)· (0.50)(0.50)/64
= 0.50 + (1.645)·(0.0625)
= 0.6028
Excel: NORMINV(0.95,0.50,SQRT(0.5*0.5/64)) = 0.6028

a. The power calculations are given below

power = P(rejecting Ho|Ho is false)
= P( p̂ >0.6028|p=0.65)
= P(z>-0.79)
= 1 – P(z<-0.79)
= 1 – 0.2148 = 0.7852 0.2148
The z corresponding to c= 0.6028 is <-----------
found by hand as follows: ^
0.6028 0.65 p
zc = (c-p)/ pq/n -0.79 0 Z
= (0.6028-0.65)/ (0.65)(0.35)/64
= -0.0472/0.0596 = -0.79
Excel: 1 – NORMDIST(0.6028,0.65,SQRT(0.65*0.35/64),1) = 0.7857
b. The shaded region in the bottom graph represents the probability of getting a sample
proportion greater than 0.6028 (i.e., of rejecting the null hypothesis that the proportion is
0.50) whenever the population proportion is actually 0.65. This is precisely the power of
the test (i.e., the probability of correctly rejecting a false null hypothesis when a specified
alternative is true).

Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p > 0.50
α = 0.05
C.V. z = -zα = 1.645
The c corresponding to z = 1.645 is
found by solving zc= (c-p)/ pq/n 0.05
for c as follows:
0.50 c ^
p
c = p + zc· pq/n 0 1.645 Z
= 0.50 + (1.645)· (0.50)(0.50)/n
= 0.50 + 0.8225/ n
The power calculations are given below
and illustrated by the figure at the right. |-------------------------------->
0.8000
c = p + zc· pq/n
= 0.55 + (-0.84)· (0.55)(0.45)/n
= 0.55 – 0.4179/ n
The final value for n is obtained by 0.2000
equating the two expressions for c. <-----------
0.50 + 0.8225/ n = 0.55 – 0.4179/ n c 0.55 ^
p
1.2404/ n = 0.05 -0.84 0 Z
1.2404/0.05 = n
n = 24.808
n = 615.43, rounded up to 616

Testing a Claim About a Proportion SECTION 8-3 245
8-3 Testing a Claim About a Proportion
NOTE: To reinforce the concept that all z scores are standardized rescalings obtained by
subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation, the manual uses the “usual” z formula
written to apply to p̂ ’s
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ .
When the normal approximation to the binomial applies, the p̂ ’s are normally distributed with
µ p̂ = p and σ p̂ = pq/n .
And so the formula for the z statistic may also be written as z p̂ = ( p̂ -p)/ pq/n .
In addition, the manual continues to use the more accurate z0.01 = 2.326 taken from the “large”
row of the t table rather than the 2.33 obtained by reading the z table backwards.
1. There were 1261 + 491 + 384 = 2136 total responses. The sample proportion of yes responses
is p̂ = x/n = 491/2136 = 0.230. The symbol p̂ is used to represent a sample proportion.
2. No. The sample is not necessarily representative of the general population for two reasons.
Since the respondents were Internet users who happened to make contact with the survey, the
sample is a convenience sample. Since the responders chose whether or not to participate, the
sample is a voluntary response sample.
3. The value of the sample proportion is p̂ = x/n = 123/280 = 0.439. Since 0.979 > 0.05, the
observed results could easily occur by chance whenever the null hypothesis is true. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the hypothesis that the proportion of correct responses is p =
0.50 (i.e., the proportion expected by chance alone) in favor of the claim that p > 0.50.
4. a. The value p is the unknown true proportion of correct guesses in the population; the claim in
Exercise 3 was that p > 0.50. The P-value is the probability of getting results (in the
direction of the alternative hypothesis) as extreme as or more extreme than the observed
results whenever the null hypothesis is true. The P-value for Exercise 3 is 0.979.
b. If the P-value is small (such as less than or equal to 0.05), there is sufficient evidence to
reject the null hypothesis. If the P-value is large (such as greater than 0.05), there is not
sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
To facilitate understanding of the process, problems 5-6 are worked by hand. The Excel output
obtained following the procedure in the text is given in the box at the right.
5. a. p̂ = x/n = 530/1000 = 0.530
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
= ( p̂ -p)/ pq/n
= (0.530 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50)/1000
= 0.030/0.0158 = 1.90
b. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
c. P-value = 2·P(z>1.90) = 2·(1 – 0.9713) = 2·(0.0287) = 0.0574
d. Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the percentage of
all college applications that are submitted online is 50%.
e. No. A hypothesis test will either “reject” or “fail to reject” a claim that a population
parameter is equal to a specified value.

6. a. p̂ = x/n = 1864/2246 = 0.830

z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
= ( p̂ -p)/ pq/n
= (0.830 – 0.80)/ (0.80)(0.20)/2246
= 0.030/0.00844 = 3.54
b. z = zα = z0.05 = 1.645
c. P-value = P(z>3.54) = 1 – 0.9999 = 0.0001 [as per Table A-2]
d. Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of adults who believe
that texting while driving should be illegal is greater than 80%.
p̂ = x/n = 1640/2246 = 0.730
Ho: p = 0.75
H1: p ≠ 0.75
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = 1.96
calculations: 0.025 0.025
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ = -2.17 [TI-83/84 Plus] ^
0.75 p
P-value = 0.0301 [TI-83/84 Plus] -1.96 0 1.96 z
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that p = 0.75 and conclude that
p ≠ 0.75 (in fact, that p < 0.75). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
proportion of adults who use cell phones while driving is 75%.
NOTE: The “in fact, that p <0.75” in the conclusion for Exercise 7 is given in parentheses. Some
instructors prefer not to suggest one-sided conclusions from two sided tests. This manual follows
the common sense approach consistent with the text’s interpretation of two-sided confidence
intervals that are entirely above or below a specified value.

p̂ = x/n = 35/750 = 0.047
Ho: p = 0.05
H1: p < 0.05
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -2.326
calculations: .01
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ = -0.42 [Minitab] 0.05 ^
p
P-value = 0.338 [Minitab] -2.326 0 z
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that p < 0.05. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the proportion of people aged 14 or older who
were arrested within the last year is less than 5%.
IMPORTANT NOTE: For the remainder of the manual, tests of hypothesis will generally follow the
pattern and include the output given below for exercises 9-32 – viz., the critical value(s) as
determined from the tables in the text, the basic hand calculations, the P-value determined from
the text tables, an accompanying figure to illustrate the test, the Excel computer output (including
at least the test statistic and the exact P-value), and the conclusion..


p̂ = x/n = 589/745 = 0.791
Ho: p = 0.75
H1: p ≠ 0.75
α = 0.01
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ ^
0.75 p
= (0.791 – 0.75)/ (0.75)(0.25) / 745 -2.575 0 2.575 z
= 0.041/0.01586 = 2.56
P-value = 2·P(z>2.56) = 0.0104
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence
to reject the claim that p = 0.75. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the proportion of adults who say it is morally
wrong to not report all income is 75%.
p̂ = x/n = 308/611 = 0.504
Ho: p = 0.43
H1: p ≠ 0.43
α = 0.01
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ ^
0.75 p
= (0.504 – 0.43)/ (0.43)(0.57) / 611 -2.575 0 2.575 z
= 0.074/0.02003 = 3.70
P-value = 2·P(z>3.70) = 0.0002
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to reject
the claim that p = 0.43 and conclude that
p ≠0.43 (in fact, that p > 0.43). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
proportion of adults who believe they voted for the winning candidate is 43%. Either the
voters are deliberately not telling the truth, or they have faulty memories about how they
actually voted.
11. original claim: p > 1/3
p̂ = x/n = 327/839 = 0.390
Ho: p = 1/3
H1: p > 1/3
α = 0.01
C.V. z = zα = z0.01 = 2.326 0.01
calculations: 0.333 ^
p
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0 2.326 z
= (0.390 – 0.333)/ (1/ 3)(2 / 3) / 839

= 0.056/0.1627 = 3.47
P-value = P(z>3.47) = 0.0003

conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that p >1/3. There is sufficient evidence
to support the claim that the proportion of tennis challenges that are successful is greater
than 1/3. It appears that the referees are erring on more than 1/3 of the challenged calls –
which is not an enviable record, even if the proportion of challenged calls is quite small.
p̂ = x/n = 27/300 = 0.090
Ho: p = 0.10
H1: p < 0.10
α = 0.05
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.05 = -1.645
calculations:
0.05
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
0.10 ^p
= (0.090 – 0.10)/ (0.10)(0.90) / 300 -1.645 0 z
= -0.010/0.01732 = -0.58
P-value = P(z<-0.58) = 0.2810
conclusion:
to conclude that p < 0.10. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the proportion of test results that are incorrect
is less than 10%. No; the test appears to have too high of an error rate to be considered
reliable for most purposes.
p̂ = x/n = 72/724 = 0.099
Ho: p = 0.06
H1: p > 0.06
α = 0.05
C.V. z = zα = z0.05 = 1.645
calculations:
0.05
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
0.06 ^
p
= (0.099 – 0.06)/ (0.06)(0.94) / 724 0 1.645 z
= 0.039/0.008826 = 4.47
P-value = P(z>4.47) = 0.0001
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to
conclude that p > 0.06. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that the
proportion of Tamiflu recipients who experience nausea is greater than the 6% rate
experienced by those who took the placebo. Yes; nausea does appear to be a legitimate
concern for recipients of Tamiflu.


p̂ = x/n = 6062/(6062+5938)/12000 = 0.5052
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p < 0.50
α = 0.05
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.05 = -1.645
calculations:
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.05
0.50 ^
p
= (0.5052 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) /12000 -1.645 0 z
= 0.0052/0.004564 = 1.13
P-value = P(z<1.13) = 0.8708
conclusion:
sufficient evidence to support the claim that
people can temporarily postpone their death to survive the Thanksgiving holiday.
15. original claim: p ≠ 0.000340
p̂ = x/n = 135/420,095 = 0.000321
Ho: p = 0.000340
H1: p ≠ 0.000340
α = 0.005
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.0025 = ±2.81
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ ^
0.000340 p
= (0.000321 – 0.000340)/ (0.000340)(0.999660) -2.81 0 2.81 z
420,095
= -0.000019/0.0000284 = -0.66 Excel will not handle Ho: p = 0.00340.
P-value = 2·P(z<-0.66) = 0.5092 P-value = 2*NORMSDIST(-0.655466)
conclusion: = 0.5122
to conclude that p ≠ 0.000340. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that
the proportion cell phone users who develop such cancers is different from the rate for
people who do not use cell phones. No; based on this study, cell phone users have no extra
reasons to be concerned about cancer of the brain or nervous system.
p̂ = x/n = 32/45 = 0.711
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p > 0.50
α = 0.01
C.V. z = zα = z0.01 = 2.326
calculations: 0.01
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.50 ^
p
0 2.326 z
= (0.711 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 45
= 0.211/0.07454 = 2.83
P-value = P(z>2.83) = 0.0023

conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that p > 0.50. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that women with more than 12 years of education have a
proportion of correct predictions greater than 0.50. Yes; these women do appear to have an
ability to correctly predict the gender of their babies.
p̂ = x/n = 1299/(1299 + 5686) = 1299/6985 = 0.186
Ho: p = 0.20
H1: p < 0.20
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.01 = -2.326
calculations:
0.01
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
0.20 ^
p
= (0.186 – 0.20)/ (0.20)(0.80) / 6985 -2.326 0 z
= -0.014/0.004786 = -2.93
P-value = P(z<-2.93) = 0.0017
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to
conclude that p < 0.20. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that less than 20% of Michigan gas pumps are inaccurate.
No; from the perspective of the consumer, the rate does not appear to be low enough.
While the point estimate of 0.186 indicates the rate is lower than 20%, it should probably
be about 1/10 of that.
p̂ = x/n = 172/(172 + 39) = 172/211 = 0.815
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p > 0.50
α = 0.01
C.V. z = zα = z0.01 = 2.326
calculations: 0.01
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.50 ^
p
0 2.326 z
= (0.815 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 211
= 0.315/0.3442 = 9.16
P-value = P(z>9.16) = 0.0001
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence conclude
that p > 0.50. There is sufficient evidence
to support the claim that with this method the probability of a baby being a boy is greater
than 0.50. Yes; the YSORT method of gender selection appears to work.


p̂ = x/n = 74/98 = 0.755
Ho: p = 0.80
H1: p < 0.80
α = 0.05
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.05 = -1.645
calculations: 0.05
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.80 ^
p
-1.645 0 z
= (0.755 – 0.80)/ (0.80)(0.20) / 98
= -0.45/0.04041 = -1.11
P-value = P(z<-1.11) = 0.1335
conclusion:
sufficient evidence to support the claim polygraph tests are correct less than 80% of the
time. Yes; based on these results, polygraph test results should probably be prohibited as
evidence in trials. Even though the point estimate of 75.5% accuracy does not support the
less than 80% claim, the accuracy rate is still far too small to make conclusions beyond a
reasonable doubt.
p̂ = x/n = 481/(481 + 401) = 481/882 = 0.545
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p ≠ 0.50
α = 0.01
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.50 ^
p
-2.575 0 2.575 z
= (0.545 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 882
= 0.045/0.01684 = 2.69
P-value = 2·P(z>2.69) = 0.0072
conclusion:
p ≠ 0.50 (in fact, that p > 0.50). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
proportion of adults who respond in favor using federal dollars to fund stem cell research is
equal to 0.50. This suggests that the politician is incorrect in claiming that the responses
are chosen at random.
21. NOTE: The value for x is not given. In truth, any 726 ≤ x ≤ 744 rounds to the given
p̂ = x/5000 = 15%. For want of more precise information, use p̂ = 0.15 in the hand
calculations and x = 750 for the Excel input.
original claim: p < 0.20
p̂ = x/n = x/5000 = 0.15

Ho: p = 0.20
H1: p < 0.20
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.01 = -2.326
calculations:
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
= (0.15 – 0.20)/ (0.20)(0.80) / 5000 0.01
= -0.05/0.005657 = -8.84 0.20 ^
p
-2.326 0 z
P-value = P(z<-8.84) = 0.0001
conclusion:
evidence to support the advertiser’s claim that
the proportion of households tuned to 60
Minutes is less than 20%.
use x = (0.30)(30) = 9
p̂ = x/n = 9/30 = 0.300
Ho: p = 0.25
H1: p > 0.25
α = 0.05 [assumed]
C.V. z = zα = z0.05 = 1.645 0.05
calculations: ^
0.25 p
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0 1.645 z
= (0.300 – 0.25)/ (0.25)(0.75) / 30

= 0.050/0.07906 = 0.63
P-value = P(z>0.63) = 0.2643
conclusion:
to conclude that p > 0.30. There is not sufficient evidence to support the new sheriff’s
claim that the new arrest rate is greater than 25%.
use x = (.473)(150) = 70.95, rounded to 71
p̂ = x/n = 71/150 = 0.473
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p ≠ 0.50
α = 0.05 [assumed]
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96 0.025 0.025
calculations:
0.50 ^
p
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ -1.96 0 1.96 z
= (0.473 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) /150
= -0.27/0.04082 = -0.65
P-value = 2·P(z<-0.65) = 0.5156

conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that p = 0.50. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the proportion of executives who say the
most common interview mistake is failure to know the company is 50%. The important
lesson is that a person going for a job interview should prepare by learning about the
company at which he is applying.
use x = (0.183)(785) = 143.66, rounded to 144
p̂ = x/n = 144/785 = 0.183
Ho: p = 0.27
H1: p < 0.27
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.01 = -2.326 0.01
calculations: ^
0.27 p
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ -2.326 0 z
= (0.183 – 0.27)/ (0.27)(0.73) / 785

= -0.087/0.01585 = -5.46
P-value = P(z<-5.46) = 0.0001
conclusion:
conclude that p < 0.27. There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the
proportion of smokers among those with four years of college is less than the general rate
of 27%. College graduates would smoke at a lower rate than others because those with
better education tend to make wiser decisions and are more likely to recognize the various
disadvantages of smoking.
original claim: p = 0.75
p̂ = x/n = x/3011 = 0.73
Ho: p = 0.75
H1: p ≠ 0.75
α = 0.05 [assumed]
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.75 ^
p
-1.96 0 1.96 z
= (0.73 – 0.75)/ (0.75)(0.25) / 3011
= -0.02/0.007891 = -2.53
P-value = 2·P(z<-2.53) = 0.0114
conclusion:
p ≠ 0.75 (in fact, that p < 0.75). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
proportion of adults who use the Internet is ¾. While the difference between 0.73 and 0.75
may be of little practical significance, in the interest of accuracy the reporter should not
write that ¾ of all adults use the Internet.

p̂ = x/n = x/1501 = 0.20
Ho: p = 0.25
H1: p < 0.25
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.01 = -2.326
0.01
calculations:
0.25 ^p
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ -2.326 0 z
= (0.20 – 0.25)/ (0.25)(0.75) /1501
= -0.05/0.01118 = -4.47
P-value = P(z<-4.47) = 0.0001
conclusion:
conclude that p < 0.25. There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the
proportion of persons who believe there is not solid evidence for global warming is less
than 25%. One possible consequence of too many people incorrectly believing that there is
not solid evidence of global warming is that no personal or political action will be taken to
deal with the problem in a timely manner.
27. NOTE: The problem as stated is not possible. No whole number x yields x/59 = 43%, as
25/59 = 42.4% and 26/59 = 44.1%. Use the closest possible value, x = 25.
p̂ = x/n = 25/59 = 0.424
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p ≠ 0.50
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
0.025 0.025
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
0.50 ^
p
= (0.424 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 59 -1.96 0 1.96 z
= -0.076/0.06509 = -1.17
P-value = 2·P(z<-1.17) = 2·(0.1210) = 0.2420
conclusion:
to reject the claim that p = 0.50. There is not
sufficient evidence to reject the claim that women with 12 years of education or less
have no ability to predict the gender of their babies. Conclude that the guesses of these
women do not differ significantly from the results of random guesses.

p̂ = x/n = x/870 = 0.39
Ho: p = 0.791
H1: p < 0.791
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.01 = -2.326
calculations: 0.01
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.791 ^
p
-2.326 0 z
= (0.39 – 0.791)/ (0.791)(0.209) / 870
= -0.401/0.01378 = -29.09
P-value = P(z<-29.09) = 0.0001
conclusion:
evidence to support the claim that the selection process results in under representation of
Americans of Mexican ancestry. The jury selection process appears to be unfair – although
the under representation could be caused by persons opting out and not by a bias in the
selection process.
29. NOTE: The value for x is not given. In truth, any 15,720 ≤ x ≤ 16,336 rounds to the given
p̂ = x/61,647 = 26%. For want of more precise information, use p̂ = 0.26 in the hand
original claim: p > 0.25
p̂ = x/n = x/61,647 = 0.26
Ho: p = 0.25
H1: p > 0.25
α = 0.05
C.V. z = zα = z0.05 = 1.645
0.05
calculations:
^
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.25 p
0 1.645 z
= (0.26 – 0.25)/ (0.25)(0.75) / 61,647
= 0.01/0.001744 = 5.73
P-value = P(z>5.73) = 1 – 0.9999 = 0.0001
conclusion:
conclude that p > 0.25. There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the
proportion of employees who say that bosses scream at employees is greater than 25%. If
the survey was done with a voluntary response sample, then the sample is not necessarily
representative of the population and the above conclusion may not be valid.

30. NOTE: The value for x is not given. In truth, any 13,555 ≤ x ≤ 13,768 rounds to the given
p̂ = x/21,346 = 64%. For want of more precise information, use p̂ = 0.64 in the hand
p̂ = x/n = x/21,346 = 0.64
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p > 0.50
α = 0.01
C.V. z = zα = z0.01 = 2.326 0.01
calculations:
0.50 ^
p
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0 2.326 z
= (0.64 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 21,346
= 0.14/0.003422 = 40.91
P-value = P(z>40.91) = 0.0001
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to
conclude that p > 0.50. There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that most people
believe that the Loch Ness monster exists. If the survey was done with a voluntary
response sample, then the sample is not necessarily representative of the population and the
above conclusion may not be valid.
p̂ = x/n = x/703 = 0.61
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p > 0.50
α = 0.05
C.V. z = zα = z0.05 = 1.645
calculations: 0.05
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.50 ^
p
0 1.645 z
= (0.61 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 703
= 0.11/0.01886 = 5.83
P-value = P(z>5.83) = 0.0001
conclusion:
conclude that p > 0.50. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that most (more than 50%) workers get their jobs through
networking. The results suggests that when it comes to getting a job, who you know may
be just as important as what you know.


use x = (0.262)(580) = 151.96, rounded to 152
p̂ = x/n = 152/580 = 0.262
Ho: p = 0.25
H1: p ≠ 0.25
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
0.025 0.025
calculations:
^
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.75 p
-1.96 0 1.96 z
= (0.262 – 0.25)/ (0.25)(0.75) / 580
= 0.012/0.01798 = 0.67
P-value = 2·P(z>0.67) = 0.5028
conclusion:
to reject the claim that p = 0.25. There is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
proportion of peas with yellow pods is equal to ¼.
33. There are 100 total M&M’s, 13 of which are red.
p̂ = x/n = 13/100 = 0.130
Ho: p = 0.20
H1: p ≠ 0.20
α = 0.05 [assumed]
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96 0.025 0.025
calculations: ^
0.20 p
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ -1.96 0 1.96 z
= (0.130 – 0.20)/ (0.20)(0.80) /100

= -0.070/0.04000 = -1.75
P-value = 2·P(z<-1.75) = 0.0802
conclusion:
to reject the claim that p = 0.20. There is not
sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the proportion of M&M’s that are red is 20%.
34. There are 67 total freshmen, 32 of which are males.
p̂ = x/n = 32/67 = 0.478
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p ≠ 0.50
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.50 ^
p
-1.96 0 1.96 z
= (0.478 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 67
= -0.022/0.06108 = -0.37
P-value = 2·P(z<-0.37) = 0.7114

conclusion:
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the students were selected from a population
in which the percentage of males is equal to 50%.
35. There are 54 total bears, 35 of which are males.
p̂ = x/n = 35/54 = 0.648
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p ≠ 0.50
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96 0.025 0.025
calculations: 0.50 ^
p
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ -1.96 0 1.96 z
= (0.648 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 54

= 0.148/0.06804 = 2.18
P-value = 2·P(z>2.18) = 0.0292
conclusion:
bears were selected from a population in which the percentage of males is equal to 50%.
36. There are 35 total movies, 12 of which are rated R.
p̂ = x/n = 12/35 = 0.343
Ho: p = 0.55
H1: p ≠ 0.55
α = 0.01
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ ^
0.55 p
= (0.343 – 0.55)/ (0.55)(0.45) / 35 -2.575 0 2.575 z
= -0.207/0.08409 = -2.46
P-value = 2·P(z<-2.46) = 0.0138
conclusion:
to reject the claim that p = 0.55. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the movies were selected from a population
in which the percentage of R-rated movies is 55%.

37. There are 35 total movies, 12 of which are rated R.

p̂ = x/n = 12/35 = 0.343
Ho: p = 0.55
H1: p ≠ 0.55
α = 0.01
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
calculations:
P-value = P(a result as extreme as or more extreme than the observed result| Ho is true)
= 2·P(12 or fewer occurrences| p = 0.55)
= 2*BINOMDIST(12,35,0.55,1)
= 0.021873
conclusion:
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the movies were selected from a population
in which the percentage of R-rated movies is 55%.
p̂ = x/n = 119/1000 = 0.119
Ho: p = 0.10
H1: p ≠ 0.10
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
0.10 ^
p
= (0.119 – 0.10)/ (0.10)(0.90)/1000 -1.96 0 1.96 z
= 0.019/0.00949 = 2.00
P-value = 2·P(z>2.00) = 0.0456
conclusion:
proportion of zeros equals 0.10.
a. As seen above, the traditional method leads to rejection of the claim that p=0.10 because the
calculated z=2.00 is greater than the critical value of 1.96.
b. As seen above, the P-value method leads to rejection of the claim that p=0.10 because the
calculated P-value=0.0456 is less than the level of significance of 0.05.
c. α = 0.05 and p̂ = x/n = 119/1000 = 0.1190
ˆˆ
p̂ ± zα/2 pq/n
0.1190 ± 1.96 (0.1190)(0.8810)/1000
0.1190 ± 0.0201
0.0989 < p < 0.139
Since 0.10 is inside the confidence interval, p=0.10 is a reasonable claim that should not be
rejected.
d. The traditional method and the P-value method are mathematically equivalent and will
always agree. As seen by this example, the confidence interval method does not always lead
to the same conclusion as the other two methods.


p̂ = x/n = 0/50 = 0
Yes, the methods of this section can be used. In general, the appropriateness of a test
depends on the design of the experiment and not the particular results. For this problem,
the normal distribution applies because
np = 50(0.1) = 5 ≥ 5
nq = 50(0.9) = 45 ≥ 5
Ho: p = 0.10
H1: p ≠ 0.10
α = 0.01
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ ^
0.10 p
= (0 – 0.10)/ (0.10)(0.90)/50 -2.575 0 2.575 z
= -0.10/0.0424 = -2.36
P-value = 2·P(z<-2.36) = 2·(0.0091) = 0.0182
conclusion:
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the proportion of M&M’s that are blue is
equal to 0.10.
40. The test of hypothesis is given below.
Ho: p = 0.40
H1: p < 0.40
α = 0.05 [assumed]
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.05 = -1.645
The c corresponding to z = -1.645 is found
by solving zc = (c-p)/ pq/n for c as follows:
0.05
c = p + zc· pq/n
c 0.40 ^
p
= 0.40 + (-1.645) (.40)(.60)/50 -1.645 0 z
= 0.40 – (1.645)(0.0693)
= 0.2860
a. The power calculations are given below and illustrated by the figure at the right.
The z corresponding to c= 0.2860 is
found as follows:
zc = (c-p)/ pq/n
= (0.2860-0.25)/ (.25)(.75)/50
= 0.0360/0.0612
= 0.59
= P( p̂ <0.2860|p=0.25) ^
0.25 0.2860 p
= P(z<0.59) 0 0.59 z
= 0.7224

b. β = P(type II error)
= P( not rejecting Ho|Ho is false)
= 1 – P(rejecting Ho|Ho is false)
= 1 – 0.7224
= 0.2776
c. No test of hypothesis can lead the researcher to the right conclusion 100% of the time. If Ho
is true, there is a 95% chance Ho will (correctly) not be rejected; if Ho is false and p=0.25 is
true, there is a 72% chance that Ho will (correctly) be rejected. These are reasonable
probabilities of success, and the test is reasonably effective.
8-4 Testing a Claim About a Mean: σ Known
1. In order to use the methods of this section to test the claim that µ = 1.5,
a. the sample must be a simple random sample.
b. the population standard deviation σ must be known.
c. the population distribution must be approximately normal (since n ≤ 30).
2. We consider the normality requirement to be satisfied if there are no outliers and the histogram
of the sample data is approximately bell-shaped. More formally, a normal quantile plot could
be used to determine whether the sample data are approximately normally distributed.
3. A one-tailed test at the 0.01 level of significance rejects the null hypothesis if the sample
statistic falls into the extreme 1% of the sampling distribution in the appropriate tail. The
corresponding (two-sided) confidence interval test that places 1% each tail would be a 98%
confidence interval.
4. The mean weight loss of 2.1 pounds is statistically significant because it led to the conclusion
that the true mean weight change is less than zero – i.e., negative, indicating a loss of weight.
The mean weight loss of 2.1 pounds (after one year on the program) is not practically
significant because most people would not consider such a small weight loss worth the effort.
5. original claim: µ = 5 cm
Ho: µ = 5 cm
H1: µ ≠ 5 cm
α = 0.05 [assumed]
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x
0.025 0.025
= 1.34 [TI-83/84] _
P-value = 0.1797 [TI-83/84] 5 x
-1.96 0 1.96 z
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient
evidence to reject the claim that µ = 5. There is not
sufficient evidence to reject the claim that women have a mean wrist breadth equal to 5 cm.

6. original claim: µ < 2.5 grams

Ho: µ = 2.5 grams
H1: µ < 2.5 grams
α = 0.05 [assumed]
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.05 = -1.645
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x
0.05
= -0.33 [Minitab] _
2.5 x
P-value = 0.370 [Minitab] -1.645 0 z
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that µ < 2.5. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim the sample is from a population with a mean less
than 2.5 grams.
7. original claim: µ > 210 sec
Ho: µ = 210 sec
H1: µ > 210 sec
α = 0.05
C.V. z = zα = z0.05 = 1.645
calculations: 0.05
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x _
210 x
= (252.5 – 210)/(54.5/ 40 ) 0 1.645 z
= 42.5/8.6172 = 4.932
P-value = P(z>4.932) = 1 – NORMSDIST(4.932) = 4.1E-07
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that µ > 210. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that the sample is from a population of songs with a mean
greater than 210 seconds. These results suggest that the advice given in the manual is not
good advice.
8. original claim: µ < 5.4 cells/microliter
Ho: µ = 5.4 cells/microliter
H1: µ < 5.4 cells/microliter
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.01 = -2.326
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.01
_
= (5.23 – 5.4)/(0.54/ 50 ) 5.4 x
-2.326 0 z
= -0.17/0.0764 = -2.226
P-value = P(z<-2.226) = NORMSDIST(-2.226) = 0.0130
conclusion:
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the sample is from a population with a mean
red blood cell count less than 5.4 cells/microliter If 5.4 is the upper limit for the range of
normal individuals, and if the mean of the sample group is not significantly below the
upper limit for an individual, then that group may have unusually high red cell counts. The
µ ± 2σ guideline for normal values suggests that the population mean is approximately
5.4 – 2(0.54) = 4.32, and the sample mean of 5.23 is considerably higher than that.

Testing a Claim About a Mean: σ Known SECTION 8-4 263
9. original claim: µ = 0.8535 grams

Ho: µ = 0.8535 grams
H1: µ ≠ 0.8535 grams
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.025 0.025
_
= (0.8635 – 0.8535)/(0.0565/ 19 ) 0.8535 x
= 0.0100/0.01296 -1.96 0 1.96 z
= 0.771
P-value = 2·P(z>0.771) = 2*(1 – NORMSDIST(0.771)) = 0.4404
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that µ = 0.8535. There
is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the mean weight of green M&M’s is
0.8535 grams. Yes; green M&M’s appear to have weights consistent with the label.
10. original claim: µ = 98.6 °F
Ho: µ = 98.6 °F
H1: µ ≠ 98.6 °F
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.025 0.025
= (98.20 – 98.6)/(0.62/ 106 ) _
98.6 x
= -0.40/0.06022 -1.96 0 1.96 z
= -6.642
P-value = 2·P(z<-6.642) = 2*NORMSDIST(-6.642) = 3.1E-11
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that µ = 98.6 and conclude that
µ ≠ 98.6 (in fact, that µ < 98.6). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
mean body temperature of the population is 98.6 °F. Yes; it appears there is sufficient
evidence to conclude that the common belief is wrong.
11. original claim: µ > 0 lbs
Ho: µ = 0 lbs
H1: µ > 0 lbs
α = 0.01
C.V. z = zα = z0.01 = 2.326
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.01
= (3.0 – 0)/(4.9/ 40 ) _
0 x
= 3.0/0.7748 0 2.326 z
= 3.872
P-value = P(z>3.872) = 1 – NORMSDIST(3,872) = 5.4E-05
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that µ > 0. There is sufficient evidence
to support the claim that the mean weight loss is greater than 0. The diet is effective in that
the weight loss is statistically significant – but a mere 3.0 lbs weight loss after following
the regimen for an entire year suggests the diet may have no practical significance.

12. original claim: µ ≠ 3.5

Ho: µ = 3.5
H1: µ ≠ 3.5
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
0.025 0.025
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x _
3.5 x
= (2.9375 – 3.5)/(1.7078 / 16 ) -1.96 0 1.96 z
= -0.5625/0.42695 = -1.317
P-value = 2·P(z<-1.317) = 2*NORMSDIST(-1.317) = 0.1877
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that µ ≠ 3.5. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean of the outcomes of the loaded die are
different from 3.5. Yes; because the outcomes are probably (like those of a regular die) not
normally distributed and n ≤ 30, the requirements for using the methods of this section are
not met and the conclusion may not be valid.
13. original claim: µ ≠ 91.4 cm
Ho: µ = 91.4 cm
H1: µ ≠ 91.4 cm
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
0.025 0.025
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x _
91.4 x
= (92.8 – 91.4)/(3.6/ 36 ) -1.96 0 1.96 z
= 1.4/0.6000 = 2.333
P-value = 2·P(z>2.333) = 2*(1 – NORMSDIST(2.333)) = 0.0196
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that µ ≠ 91.4 (in fact, that µ > 91.4).
There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that males at her college have a sitting
height different from 91.4. Yes; since she used a convenience sample (not a simple random
sample), the requirements of this section are not met and the conclusion may not be valid.
Ho: µ = 150 lbs
H1: µ > 150 lbs
α = 0.05
C.V. z = zα = z0.05 = 1.645
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.05
_
= (182.9 – 150)/(121.8/ 54 ) 150 x
0 1.645 z
= 32.9/16.5749
= 1.985
P-value = P(z>1.985) = 1 – NORMSDIST(1.985) = 0.0236
conclusion:
evidence to support the claim that the mean weight of all such bears is greater than 150 lbs.

15. original claim: µ < $500,000

Ho: µ = $500,000
H1: µ < $500,000
α = 0.05
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.05 = -1.645
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.05
_
500,000 x
= (415953 – 500000)/(463364/ 40 ) -1.645 0 z
= -84047/73264.2813 = -1.147
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that µ <500,000. There
is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean salary of an NCAA football
coach is less than $500,000.
16. original claim: µ = 12 oz
Ho: µ = 12 oz
H1: µ ≠ 12 oz
α = 0.01
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 12
_
x
-2.575 0 2.575 z
= (12.19 – 12)/(0.11/ 36 )
= 0.19/0.01833 = 10.364
P-value = 2·P(z>10.364) = 2*(1 – NORMSDIST(10.364)) = 0 [actually 0.0000+]
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that µ = 12 and conclude that
µ ≠ 12 (in fact, that µ > 12). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that cans of
regular Coke have a mean volume of 12 oz. The difference is statistically significant, but
the difference is of practical significance only in that it guarantees that virtually 100% of
the product meets the volume stated on the label.
17. original claim: µ ≠ 235.8 cm
Ho: µ = 235.8 cm
H1: µ ≠ 235.8 cm
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.025 0.025
_
= (235.4 – 235.8)/(4.5/ 40 ) 235.8 x
-1.96 0 1.96 z
= -0.4/0.7115
= -0.562
P-value = 2·P(z<-0.562) = 2*NORMSDIST(-0.562) = 0.5740
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that µ ≠ 235.8. There
is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the new baseballs have a bounce height
different from the 235.8 cm of the old ones. No; the new baseballs are not significantly
different.

18. original claim: µ < 30 lbs

Ho: µ = 30 lbs
H1: µ < 30 lbs
α = 0.05
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.05 = -1.645
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.05
_
30 x
= (27.443 – 30)/(12.458/ 62 ) -1.645 0 z
= -2.557/1.5822 = -1.616
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that µ < 30. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean weight of weekly household garbage
is less than 30 lbs. Yes; based on these results, it is possible that the population mean
weight is 30 lbs or more and that the system is in danger of being overloaded.
19. summary statistics: n = 12 Σx = 9131 Σx2 = 6,985,297 x = (Σx)/n = 9131/12 = 760.9
original claim: µ = 678 FICO units
Ho: µ = 678 FICO units
H1: µ ≠ 678 FICO units
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x
0.025 0.025
= (760.9 – 678)/(58.3/ 12 ) _
= 82.9/16.8298 678 x
-1.96 0 1.96 z
= 4.93
P-value = P(z>4.93) < 0.0001
conclusion:
the claim that µ = 678 and conclude that
µ ≠ 678 (in fact, that µ > 678). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that these
FICO scores come from a population with a mean equal to 678.
20. summary statistics: n = 40 Σx = 2735 Σx2 = 188,259 x = (Σx)/n = 2735/40 = 68.375
original claim: µ > 65 mph
Ho: µ = 65 mph
H1: µ > 65 mph
α = 0.01
C.V. z = zα = z0.01 = 2.326
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.01
= (68.375 – 65)/(5.7/ 40 ) _
65 x
= 3.375/0.9012 0 2.326 z
= 3.74
P-value = P(z>3.74) < 0.0001

conclusion:
to support the claim that the sample is from a population with a mean greater than 65 mph.
21. The mean length of the n = 50 screws is x = 0.74682 inches.
original claim: µ = 0.75 inches
Ho: µ = 0.75 inches
H1: µ ≠ 0.75 inches
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.025 0.025
_
= (0.74682 – 0.75)/(0.012/ 50 ) 0.75 x
= -0.00318/0.001697 = -1.87 -1.96 0 1.96 z
P-value = 2·P(z<-1.87) = 0.061
conclusion:
to reject the claim that µ = 0.75. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the screws have a mean length of ¾ in. as
indicated on the label. Yes; the lengths appear to be consistent with the label.
22. The mean length of the n = 40 readings is x = 123.6625 volts.
original claim: µ = 120 volts
Ho: µ = 120 volts
H1: µ ≠ 120 volts
α = 0.01
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.005 = ±2.575
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x
0.005 0.005
= (123.6625 – 120)/(0.24/ 40 ) _
120 x
= 3.6625/0.03795 = 96.52 -2.575 0 2.575 z
P-value = 2·P(z>96.52) = 0.0001
conclusion:
µ ≠ 120 (in fact, that µ > 120). There is
sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the mean home voltage amount is 120 volts.
23. a. In general, the power of a test is the probability of correctly rejecting the hull hypothesis
when some specified alternative is actually correct. In this context, a power of 0.2296
indicates that when the true population mean is actually 170 lbs, the test has a 22.96%
probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis that the mean is 166.3 lbs in order to
conclude that the mean is greater than 166.3 lbs.
b. In general, β = P(type II error)
= P( not rejecting Ho|Ho is false)
In this context, β = 1 – P(rejecting Ho:µ = 166.3| µ = 170))
= 1 – 0.2296
= 0.7704


Ho: µ = 166.3 lbs
H1: µ > 166.3 lbs
α = 0.05
C.V. z = zα = z0.05 = 1.645
The c corresponding to z = 1.645 is 0.05
found by solving zc = (c-µ)/(σ/ n ) _
166.3 c x
for c as follows. 0 1.645 z
c = µ + zc·(σ/ n )
= 166.3 + 1.645(26/ 40 )
= 166.3 + 6.76
= 173.06
The z corresponding to c= 173.06 is
zc = (c-µ)/(σ/ n )
= (173.06 – 180)/(26/ 40 )
= -6.937/4.1110 = -1.69 0.0455
<------------ _
power = P(rejecting Ho|Ho is false) 173.06 180 x
-1.69 0 z
= P( x >173.06|µ=180)
= P(z>-1.69)
= 1 – 0.0455
= 0.9545
b. β = P(type II error) = P( not rejecting Ho|Ho is false)
= 1 – 0.9545
= 0.0455
The test is very effective in recognizing that the mean is greater than 166.3 lbs when the
mean is actually equal to 180 lbs, for it will do so 95.45% of the time and fail to do so only
4.55% of the time.
8-5 Testing a Claim About a Mean: σ Not Known
1. Yes; since n ≤ 30, the sample should be from a population that is approximately normally
distributed. We consider the normality requirement to be satisfied for such data if there are no
outliers and the histogram of the sample data is approximately bell-shaped. More formally, a
normal quantile plot could be used to determine whether the sample data are approximately
normally distributed.
2. In statistics, df denotes the degrees of freedom. In general, the degrees of freedom give the
number of pieces of information that are free to vary without changing the mathematical
constraints of the problem. When using a t test with n = 20 sample values to test a claim about
the mean of a population, df = 19.

Testing a Claim About a Mean: σ Not Known SECTION 8-5 269
3. A t test is a hypothesis test that uses the Student t distribution, typically to perform a test about
µ when the true value of σ is not know. The letter t is used because that was the notation
chosen by William Gosset (1786-1937), the developer of the distribution. He wrote under the
pseudonym Student, and t is most prominent letter in “student” (considering that “s” was
already being used to denote the standard deviation).
4. This section and the preceding section involve making inferences about an unknown
population mean. This section, which does not require knowing the value of the population
standard deviation, is the more realistic. Since the standard deviation measures the spread
around the mean, it is not realistic to have a situation in which the standard deviation is known
and the mean is not.
5. Use t. When σ is unknown and the x’s are approximately normally distributed, use t.
6. Neither the z nor the t applies. When σ is unknown and the x’s are not normally distributed,
sample sizes n≤30 cannot be used with the techniques in this chapter.
7. Neither the z nor the t applies. When σ is unknown and the x’s are not normally distributed,
sample sizes n≤30 cannot be used with the techniques in this chapter.
8. Use t. When σ is unknown and the x’s are not normally distributed, use t may be used
whenever n>30.
NOTE: Exercises 9–12 may be worked as follows.
table: find the correct df row in Table A-3, and see what values surround the given t.
Excel: use TDIST(t-value, df, # of tails) – but be advised that the TDIST function requires a
positive value for t, and probabilities associated with negative values of t must be determined by
appealing to the symmetry of the t distribution.
For the remainder of this manual, exact P-values for the t distribution USING THE
UNROUNDED VALUES of t will be determined as described above and as in exercises #9-#12.
Critical values for df values not in Table A-3 will be determined using TINV(p,df) – where p
denotes the two-tailed α necessary to produce the desired tail probability value(s). And as in the
previous chapter, a subscript (df) may be used to identify which t distribution to use in the tables.
9. P-value = P(t24 > 0.430)
table for area in one tail: [0.430 < 1.318] P- value > 0.10
TDIST(0.430,24,1) = 0.3355
10. P-value = 2·P(t14 > 1.495)
table for area in two tails: [1.761 > 1.495 > 1.345] 0.10 < P- value < 0.20
TDIST(1.495,14,2) = 0.1571
11. P-value = 2·P(t8 < -1.905)
table for area in two tails: [-2.306 < -1.905 < -1.860] 0.05 < P- value < 0.10
TDIST(1.905,8,2) = 0.0932
12. P-value = P(t10 < -3.518)

table for area in one tail: [-3.518 < -3.169] P- value < 0.01
TDIST(3.518,10,1) = 0.0028

13. original claim: µ > 210 sec

Ho: µ = 210 sec
H1: µ > 210 sec
α = 0.05 and df = 39
C.V. t = tα = t0.05 = 1.685
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.05
= 4.93 [Minitab] _
210 x
P-value = 0.000 [Minitab] 0 1.685 t 39
conclusion:
evidence to support that claim that the sample is from a population with a mean greater
than 210 seconds. The results suggest that the advice in the manual is not good advice.
14. original claim: µ < 5.4 cells/microliter
Ho: µ = 5.4 cells/microliter
H1: µ < 5.4 cells/microliter
α = 0.01 and df = 49
C.V. t = -tα = -t0.01 = -TINV(0.02,49) = -2.405
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.01
= -2.226 [TI-83/84+] _
5.4 x
P-value = 0.0153 [TI-83/84+] -2.405 0 t 49
conclusion:
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the sample is from a population with a mean
red blood cell count less than 5.4 cells/microliter If 5.4 is the upper limit for the range of
normal individuals, and if the mean of the sample group is not significantly below the
upper limit for an individual, then that group may have unusually high red cell counts. The
µ ± 2σ guideline for normal values suggests that the population mean is approximately
5.4 – 2(0.54) = 4.32, and the sample mean of 5.23 is considerably higher than that.
15. original claim: µ < 21.1 mg
Ho: µ = 21.1 mg
H1: µ < 21.1 mg
α = 0.05 and df = 24
C.V. t = -tα = -t0.05 = -1.711
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.05
_
= (13.2 – 21.1)/(3.7/ 25 ) 21.1 x
-1.711 0 t 24
= -7.9/0.7400 = -10.676
P-value = P(t24 < -10.676) = TDIST(10.676,24,1) = 6.752E-11 = 0.00000000007
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that µ < 21.1. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that filtered 100 mm cigarettes have a mean tar amount less
than 21.1 mg. The results suggest that filters are effective in reducing the amount of tar.


Ho: µ = 0 lbs
H1: µ > 0 lbs
α = 0.01 and df = 39
C.V. t = tα = t0.01 = 2.426
calculations:
0.01
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
0 x
= (3.0 – 0)/(4.9/ 40 ) 0 2.426 t 39
= 3.0/0.7748 = 3.872
P-value = P(t39 > 3.872) = TDIST(3.872,39,1) = 0.0002
conclusion:
to support the claim that the mean weight loss is greater than 0. The diet is effective in that
the weight loss is statistically significant – but a mere 3.0 lbs weight loss after following
the regimen for an entire year suggests the diet may have no practical significance.
17. original claim: µ = 2.5 grams
Ho: µ = 2.5 grams
H1: µ ≠ 2.5 grams
α = 0.05 and df = 36
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.025 = ±2.028
calculations:
0.025 0.025
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
2.5 x
= (2.49910 – 2.5)/(0.01648/ 37 ) -2.028 0 2.028 t 36
= -0.00090/0.002709 = -0.332
P-value = 2·P(t36 < -1.756) = TDIST(0.332,36,2) = 0.7417
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that µ = 2.5. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the sample is from a population with mean
weight 2.5 grams. Yes; the pennies appear to conform to the specifications.
18. original claim: µ = 49.5 cents
Ho: µ = 49.5 cents
H1: µ ≠ 49.5 cents
α = 0.01 and df = 99
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.01 = ±TINV(0.01,99) = 2.626
calculations:
0.005 0.005
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
49.5 x
= (47.6 – 49.5)/(33.5/ 100 ) -2.626 0 2.626 t 99
= -1.9/3.3500 = -0.567
P-value = 2·P(t99 < -0.567) = TDIST(0.567,99,2) = 0.5719
conclusion:
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the sample is from a population with a mean
equal to 49.5 cents. The results suggest that the cents portion of credit card charges could
be uniformly distributed from 0 to 99, although there are many other possibilities that
would produce a similar sample mean.

19. original claim: µ > 4.5 years

Ho: µ = 4.5 years
H1: µ > 4.5 years
α = 0.05 and df = 80
C.V. t = tα = t0.05 = 1.664
calculations:
0.05
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
4.5 x
= (4.8 – 4.5)/(2.2/ 81 ) 0 1.664 t 80
= 0.3/0.2444
= 1.227
P-value = P(t80 > 1.227) = TDIST(1.227,80,1) = 0.1117
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that µ > 4.5. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean time for all college students to earn
their bachelor’s degrees is greater than 4.5 years.
20. original claim: µ = 120 volts
Ho: µ = 120 volts
α = 0.05 and df = 39
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.025 = ±2.023
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.025 0.025
_
= (123.59 – 120)/(0.31/ 40 ) 120 x
-2.023 0 2.023 t 39
= 3.59/0.04902
= 73.242
P-value = 2·P(t39 > 73.242) = TDIST(73.242,39,2) = 2.2E-43 ≈ 0
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that µ = 120 and conclude that
µ ≠ 120 (in fact, that µ > 120). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
mean voltage amount is 120 volts.
21. original claim: µ = 49.5 cents
Ho: µ = 49.5 cents
H1: µ < 49.5 cents
α = 0.01 and df = 99
C.V. t = -tα = -t0.01 = -TINV(0.02,99) = -2.365
calculations:
0.01
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
49.5 x
= (23.8 – 49.5)/(32.0/ 100 ) -2.365 0 t 99
= -25.7/3.2000
= -8.031
P-value = 2·P(t99 < -8.031) = TDIST(8.031,99,2) = 2.1E-12 ≈ 0
conclusion:
evidence to conclude that the cents portion of all checks has a mean that is less than 49.5
cents. The results suggest that the cents portions of checks are not uniformly distributed
from 0 to 99 cents.

22. original claim: µ > 65 mph

Ho: µ = 65 mph
H1: µ > 65 mph
α = 0.05 and df = 39
C.V. t = tα = t0.05 = 1.685
calculations:
0.05
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
65 x
= (68.4 – 65)/(5.7/ 40 ) 0 1.685 t 39
= 3.4/0.9012 = 3.773
P-value = P(t39 > 3.773) = TDIST(3.773,39,1) = 0.0003
conclusion:
to support the claim that the mean speed of all such cars is greater than the posted speed of
65 mph.
23. original claim: µ = 8.00 tons
Ho: µ = 8.00 tons
H1: µ ≠ 8.00 tons
α = 0.05 and df = 31
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.025 = ±2.040
calculations:
0.025 0.025
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
8.00 x
= (7.78 – 8.00)/(1.08/ 32 ) -2.040 0 2.040 t 31
= -0.22/0.1909 = -1.152
P-value = 2·P(t17 < -1.152) = TDIST(1.152,31,2) = 0.2580
conclusion:
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that all cars have a mean greenhouse gas
emission of 8.00 tons.
24. original claim: µ > 63.6 inches
H1: µ > 63.6 inches
α = 0.01 and df = 8
C.V. t = tα = t0.01 = 2.896
calculations: 0.01
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
63.6 x
0 2.896 t8
= (70.0 – 63.6)/(1.5/ 9 )
= 6.4/0.5000 = 12.800
P-value = P(t8 > 12.800) = TDIST(12.800,8,1) = 6.5E-7 = 0.0000007
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that µ > 63.6. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that supermodels have a mean height that is greater than the
63.6 inches of the general population of women. Yes; assuming that the heights of
supermodels are approximately normally distributed around their mean, the test and the
conclusion are valid.

25. preliminary values: n = 6, Σx = 4222, Σx2 = 3,342,798, x = 703.67, s2 = 74383.47, s = 272.73
original claim: µ < 1000 hic
Ho: µ = 1000 hic
H1: µ < 1000 hic
α = 0.01 and df = 5
C.V. t = -tα = -t0.01 = -3.365
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.01
_
= (703.67 – 1000)/(272.73/ 6 ) 1000 x
-3.365 0 t 5
= -296.33/111.3429
= -2.661
P-value = P(t5 < -2.661) = 0.0224
conclusion:
to conclude that µ < 1000. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the population mean is less than 1000 hic. No;
since one of the sample values is 1210, there is proof that not all of the child booster seats
meet the specified requirement.
26. preliminary values: n = 10, Σx = 533, Σx2 = 30,615, x = 53.3, s2 = 245.12, s = 15.66
original claim: µ > 48.0 words
Ho: µ = 48.0 words
H1: µ > 48.0 words
α = 0.05 and df = 9
C.V. t = tα = t0.05 = 1.833
calculations:
0.05
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
48.0 x
= (53.3 – 48.0)/(15.66/ 10 ) 0 1.833 t 9
= 5.3/4.9510
= 1.070
P-value = P(t9 > 1.070) = 0.1561
conclusion:
to conclude that µ > 48.0. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the
mean number of words per page is greater than 48.0. There is not enough evidence to
support the claim that there are more than 70,000 words in the dictionary.
27. preliminary: n = 5, Σx = 32061, Σx2 = 220,431,831, x = 6412.2, s2 = 3,712,581.7, s = 1926.80
original claim: µ = $5000
Ho: µ = $5000
H1: µ ≠ $5000
α = 0.05 and df = 4
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.025 = ±2.776
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.025 0.025
_
= (6412.2 – 5000)/(1926.80/ 5 ) 5000 x
-2.776 0 2.776 t4
= 1412.2/861.6927
= 1.639

P-value = 2·P(t4 >1.639) = 0.1766

conclusion:
to reject the claim that µ = 5000. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the mean damage cost is $5000.
28. preliminary values: n = 10, Σx = 187.6, Σx2 = 3532.04, x = 18.76, s2 = 1.4071, s = 1.1862
original claim: µ < 20.16
Ho: µ = 20.16
H1: µ < 20.16
α = 0.01 and df = 9
C.V. t = -tα = -t0.01 = -2.821
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.01
_
= (18.76 – 20.16)/(1.1862/ 10 ) 20.16 x
= -1.40/0.3751 -2.821 0 t 9
= -3.732
P-value = P(t9 < -3.732) = 0.0023
conclusion:
conclude that µ < 20.16. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that the recent winners are from a population with BMI less
than 20.16, which was the BMI for winners in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Yes; recent winners
appear to be significantly different from those in the earlier years.
29. summary statistics from Excel: n = 50, x = 0.74682, s = 0.012322
original claim: µ = 0.75 inches
H1: µ ≠ 0.75 inches
α = 0.05 and df = 49
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.025 = ±TINV(0.05,49) = ±2.010
calculations:
0.025 0.025
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
0.75 x
= (0.74682 – 0.75)/(0.012322/ 50 ) -2.010 0 2.010 t 49
= -0.00318/0.001743
= -1.825
P-value = 2·P(t49 < -1.825) = 0.0741
conclusion:
to reject the claim that µ = 0.75. There is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
screws have a mean length of ¾ in. as indicated on the label. Yes; the lengths appear to be
consistent with the label.


original claim: µ = 120 volts
Ho: µ = 120 volts
α = 0.01 and df = 39
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.005 = ±2.708
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.005 0.005
_
210 x
= (123.6625 – 120)/(0.24039/ 40 ) -2.708 0 2.708 t 39
= 3.6625/0.03801
= 96.369
P-value = 2·P(t39 > 96.369) < 0.0001
conclusion:
µ ≠ 120 (in fact, that µ > 120). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
mean home voltage amount is 120 volts.
original claim: µ = 98.6 °F
Ho: µ = 98.6 °F
H1: µ ≠ 98.6 °F
α = 0.05 [assumed] and df = 105
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.025 = ±TINV(0.05,105) = ±1.983
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.025 0.025
_
= (98.2000 – 98.6)/(0.6229/ 106 ) 98.6 x
-1.983 0 1.983 t 105
= -0.4000/0.06050
= -6.611
P-value = 2·P(t105 < -6.611) < 0.0001
conclusion:
the claim that µ = 98.6 and conclude that
µ ≠ 98.6 (in fact, that µ < 98.6). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the
mean body temperature of the population is 98.6 °F. Yes; it appears there is sufficient
evidence to conclude that the common belief is wrong.
original claim: µ = 678 FICO units
Ho: µ = 678 FICO units
H1: µ ≠ 678 FICO units
α = 0.05 and df = 99
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.025 = ±TINV(0.05,99) = ±1.984
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.025 0.025
_
678 x
= (703.11 – 678)/(92.230/ 100 ) -1.984 0 1.984 t 99
= 25.11/9.223
= 2.723

P-value = 2·P(t99 >2.723) = 0.0077

conclusion:
µ ≠ 678 (in fact, that µ > 678). There is
sufficient evidence to reject the claim that these FICO scores come from a population with
a mean equal to 678.
33. The two methods may be compared as follows.
method of this section alternative method
Ho: µ = 100 Ho: µ = 100
H1: µ ≠ 100 H1: µ ≠ 100
α = 0.05 and df = 31 α = 0.05
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±2.040 C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±1.960
calculations: calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x z x = (x - µ)/σ x
= (105.3 – 100)/(15.0/ 32 ) = (105.3 – 100)/(15.0/ 32 )
= 5.3/2.6517 = 1.999 = 5.3/2.6517 = 1.999
P-value = 2·P(t31>1.999) P-Value) = 2·P(z>1.999)
= TDIST(1.999,31,2) = 2*(1 – NORMSDIST(1.999))
= 0.0545 = 0.0456
conclusion: conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not enough Reject Ho; there is enough evidence to
evidence to reject the claim that µ = 100. reject the claim that µ = 100 and conclude
that µ ≠ 100 (in fact, that µ > 100).
The two methods lead to different conclusions – because of the unwarranted artificial precision
created in the alternative method by assuming that the s value could be used for σ.
34. Because the z distribution has less spread than a t distribution, zα is less than tα for any α. This
makes the critical z value smaller [i.e., closer to 0] than the corresponding critical t value,
which means that rejection is more likely with z than with t.
35. A = zα·[(8·df + 3)/(8·df + 1)] t= df ⋅ (e A⋅A/df -1)

= 1.645·[(8·74 + 3)/(8·74 + 1)] = 74 ⋅ (e(1.6505)⋅(1.6505)/74 -1)
= 1.645·[595/593] = 74 ⋅ (e.0368 -1)
= 1.6505 = 74 ⋅ (.03750)
= 1.6659
This agrees exactly with the given t74,.05 = 1.666.
36. a. In general, the power of a test is the probability of correctly rejecting the hull hypothesis
when some specified alternative is actually correct. In this context, a power of 0.2203
indicates that when the true population mean is actually 170 lbs, the test has a 22.03%
probability of correctly rejecting the null hypothesis that the mean is 166.3 lbs in order to
conclude that the mean is greater than 166.3 lbs.
b. In general, β = P(type II error) = P( not rejecting Ho|Ho is false)
In this context, β = 1 – P(rejecting Ho:µ = 166.3| µ = 170))
= 1 – 0.2203 = 0.7797

37. NOTE: Throughout this exercise the manual uses the s = 26.32 given in Example 1. Going
back to the original Data Set 1 in Appendix B to find a more precise value will give slightly
different answers (beginning at the third decimal place) in parts (a) and (b).
The test of hypothesis is given below
Ho: µ = 166.3 lbs
H1: µ > 166.3 lbs
α = 0.05 and df = 39
C.V. t = tα = t0.05 = 1.685
The c corresponding to t = 1.685 is
found by solving tc = (c-µ)/(s/ n )
0.05
for c as follows. _
166.3 c x
c = µ + tc·(s/ n ) 0 1.685 t
39
= 166.3 + 1.685(26.32/ 40 )
= 166.3 + 7.01
= 173.31
The t corresponding to c= 173.31 is
tc = (c-µ)/(s/ n )
= (173.31 – 180)/(26.32/ 40 )
= -6.688/4.1616 = -1.607
= P( x >173.31|µ=180) _
173.31 180 x
= P(t39>-1.607) -1.607 0 t 39
= TDIST(1.607,39,1)
= 0.9419
b. β = P(type II error) = P( not rejecting Ho|Ho is false)
= 1 – 0.9419
= 0.0481
The test is very effective in recognizing that the mean is greater than 166.3 lbs when the
mean is actually equal to 180 lbs, for it will do so 94.19% of the time and fail to do so only
4.81% of the time.
8-6 Testing a Claim About a Standard Deviation or Variance
1. The normality requirement for an hypothesis test about a standard deviation is stricter than the
normality requirement for an hypothesis test about a mean. Deviations from normality that
were tolerated when testing a claim about a mean may be serious enough to invalidate the
results when testing a claim about a standard deviation.
2. A one-tailed test at the 0.01 level of significance rejects the null hypothesis if the sample
statistic falls into the extreme 1% of the sampling distribution in the appropriate tail. The
corresponding (two-sided) confidence interval test that places 1% each tail would be a 98%
confidence interval. When testing claims about a standard deviation, the confidence interval
method gives the same results as tests using the traditional method or the P-value method.

Testing a Claim About a Standard Deviation or Variance SECTION 8-6 279
3. No. Unlike tests and confidence intervals involving the mean, which do not require normality
when n>30, test and confidence intervals involving standard deviations require approximate
normality for all sample sizes.
4. Yes. The claim that the variance is equal to 36 mm2 and the claim that the standard deviation
is equal to 6 mm are equivalent claims, and their corresponding tests are equivalent.
5. a. test statistic: χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 = (24)(645)2/(696)2 = 20.612
b. critical values for α = 0.05 and df = 24: χ2 = χ 1-2 α / 2 = χ 0.975
2
= 12.401
χ2 = χ α2 /2 = χ 0.025
2
= 39.364
c. P-value limits: 15.659 < 20.612
P-value > 0.20
P-value exact: 2*(1 – CHIDIST(20.612,24)) = 0.6770
d. conclusion: Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient to conclude that σ ≠ 696
NOTES ON THE CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION:

(1) In general, Table A-4 will be used to find critical χ2 values. When the desired df does not
appear in Table A-4, the manual uses the CHIINV function.
(2) The P-value portion of exercises 5–8 may be worked as follows.
table: find the correct df row in Table A-4, and see what values surround the calculated χ2
Excel: use the CHIDIST function as directed in the text
For the remainder of this manual, exact P-values for the χ2 distribution USING THE UNROUNDED
2
VALUES of χ will be found using Excel as described above and used in exercises 5–8. Since the
2
χ distribution tends to center around its degrees of freedom, calculated values less than df will be
in the lower tail and calculated values greater than df will be in the upper tail – and those are the
tails that should be considered when determining P-values.
(3) As with the t distribution, the df may be used as a subscript to identify which χ2 distribution to
use in the tables. In Exercise 5, for example, one could indicate
χ 224,0.975 = 12.401 [the χ2 value with df = 24 and 0.975 in the upper tail]
χ 224,0.025 = 39.364 [the χ2 value with df = 24 and 0.025 in the upper tail]
6. a. test statistic: χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 = (7)(7.5)2/(29)2 = 0.468

b. critical value for α = 0.05 and df = 7: χ2 = χ 12−α = χ 0.95
2
= 2.167
c. P-value limits: 0.468 < 0.989
P-value < 0.005
P-value exact: 1 – CHIDIST(0.468,7) = 0.0004
d. conclusion: Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that σ < 29.
7. a. test statistic: χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 = (14)(4.8)2/(3.5)2 = 26.331

b. critical value for α = 0.01 and df = 14: χ2 = χ α2 = χ 0.01
2
= 29.141
c. P-value limits: 26.119 < 26.331 < 29.141
0.01 < P-value < 0.025
2
P-value exact: χ cdf(26.331,999,14) = 0.0235
d. conclusion: Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that σ > 3.5.

8. a. test statistic: χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 = (25)(0.18)2/(0.25)2 = 12.960

b. critical values for α = 0.01 and df = 25: χ2 = χ 1-2 α / 2 = χ 0.995
2
= 10.520
χ2 = χ α2 /2 = χ 0.005
2
= 46.928
c. P-value limits: 12.198 < 12.960 < 13.844
0.02 < P-value < 0.05
P-value exact: 2*(1 – CHIDIST(12.960,25)) = 0.0460
d. conclusion: Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient to conclude that σ ≠ 0.25.
9. There are n=37 weights in the data set.
original claim: σ > 0.0230 grams
Ho: σ = 0.0230 grams
H1: σ > 0.0230 grams
α = 0.05 and df = 36
C.V. χ2 = χ α2 = χ 0.05
2
= CHIINV(0.05,36) = 50.998
calculations: 0.05
2 2 2
χ = (n-1)s /σ 36 50.998 χ2 36
2 2
= (36)(0.03910) /(0.0230)
= 104.040
P-value = CHIDIST(104.040,36) = 1.578E-8 = 0.00000002
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that σ > 0.0230. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that the weights of pre-1983 pennies have a standard
deviation greater than 0.0230 grams. Based on these results, it appears that the weights
pre-1983 pennies vary more than the weights of post-1983 pennies – which is partly, if not
mostly, the result of being in circulation longer and having a wider variety in the amounts
of wear.
GRAPHICS NOTE: While the χ2 distribution is neither symmetric nor centered at zero, there are
some important guidelines that help to keep χ2 values in perspective. Loosely speaking, it
“bunches up” around its df (which is actually its expected value) – and so the lower critical value
will be less than df and the upper critical will be greater than df. Similarly, a calculated χ2 value
less than df falls in the lower tail and a calculated χ2 value greater than df falls in the upper tail.
To illustrate χ2 tests of hypotheses, this manual uses a “generic” figure resembling a χ2
distribution with df=4. Actually χ2 distributions with df=1 and df=2 have no upper limit and
approach the y axis asymptotically, while χ2 distributions with df>30 are essentially symmetric
and normal-looking. Because the χ2 distribution is positively skewed, the expected value df is
noted slightly to the right of the figure’s peak.
10. original claim: σ > 10 beats/minute
Ho: σ = 10 beats/minute
H1: σ > 10 beats/minute
α = 0.05 and df = 39
C.V. χ2 = χ α2 = χ 0.05
2
= CHIINV(0.05,39) = 54.572
calculations:
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 0.05
= (39)(11.3)2/(10)2 39 54.572 χ2
39
= 49.799
P-value = CHIDIST(49.799,39) = 0.1152

conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that σ > 10. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the pulse rates of men have a standard
deviation greater than 10 beats/minute.
11. original claim: σ ≠ 3.2 mg
Ho: σ = 3.2 mg
H1: σ ≠ 3.2 mg
α = 0.05 and df = 24
C.V. χ2 = χ 1-α/2
2
= χ 0.975
2
= 12.401
χ2 = χ α/2
2
= χ 0.025
2
= 39.364 0.025 0.025
calculations: 39.364 χ2
12.401 24
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 24
= (24)(3.7)2/(3.2)2 = 32.086
P-value = 2*CHIDIST(32.086,24) = 0.2498
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that σ ≠ 3.2. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the tar content of such cigarettes has a
standard deviation different from 3.2 mg.
12. original claim: σ = 6.0 lbs
Ho: σ = 6.0 lbs
H1: σ ≠ 6.0 lbs
α = 0.01 and df = 39
CV χ2 = χ 1-α/2
2
= χ 0.995
2
= CHIINV(0.995,39) = 19.996
0.005 0.005
χ2 = χ α/2
2
= χ 0.005
2
= CHIINV(0.005,39) = 65.476
calculations: 19.996 39 65.476 χ2 39
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2
= (39)(4.9)2/(6.0)2 = 26.011
P-value = 2*(1 – CHIDIST(26.011,39)) = 0.1101
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that σ =6.0. There is
not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the weight losses from this diet have a
standard deviation of 6.0 lbs.
13. There are n=9 heights.
original claim: σ < 2.5 inches
Ho: σ = 2.5 inches
H1: σ < 2.5 inches
α = 0.05 and df = 8
C.V. χ2 = χ 1-α
2
= χ 0.95
2
= 2.733
0.05
calculations:
2 2 2
χ = (n-1)s /σ 2.733 8 χ2 8
2 2
= (8)(1.5) /(2.5) = 2.880
P-value = 1 – CHIDIST(2.880,8) = 0.0583
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that σ < 2.5. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the heights of supermodels have a standard
deviation that is less than 2.5 inches, the value for the general female population. The

conclusion indicates that while supermodels may be more homogeneous than the general
population, that cannot be concluded from this sample of size n=9.
14. original claim: σ < 14.1
Ho: σ = 14.1
H1: σ < 14.1
α = 0.01 and df = 26
C.V. χ2 = χ 1-α
2
= χ 0.99
2
= 12.198
calculations: 0.01
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2
= (26)(9.3)2/(14.1)2 = 11.311 12.198 26 χ226
P-value = 1 – CHIDIST(11.311,26) = 0.0056

conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to conclude that σ < 14.1. There is sufficient
evidence to support the claim that this class has less variation than other past classes. No; a
lower standard deviation means that the scores are closer together, but it says nothing about
whether they are higher or lower.
15. original claim: σ = 10 beats/minute
Ho: σ = 10 beats/minute
H1: σ ≠ 10 beats/minute
α = 0.05 and df = 39
CV χ2 = χ 1-α/2
2
= χ 0.975
2
= CHIINV(0.975,39) = 23.654
χ2 = χ α/2
2
= χ 0.025
2
= CHIINV(0.025,39) = 58.120 0.025 0.025
calculations:
23.654 39 58.120 χ2
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 39
= (39)(12.5)2/(10)2 = 60.9375
P-value = 2·CHIDIST(60.9375,39) = 0.0277
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that σ = 10 conclude that σ ≠ 10
(in fact, that σ > 10). There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the pulse rates of
women have a standard deviation equal to 10 beats/minute.
16. original claim: σ = 28.866 cents
Ho: σ = 28.866 cents
H1: σ ≠ 28.866 cents
α = 0.01 and df = 99
CV χ2 = χ 1-α/2
2
= χ 0.995
2
= CHIINV(0.995,99) = 66.510
χ2 = χ α/2
2
= χ 0.005
2
= CHIINV(0.005,99) =138.987 0.005 0.005
calculations: 66.510 99 138.987 χ99

2
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2
= (99)(33.5)2/(28.866)2 = 133.337
P-value = 2*CHIDIST(133.337,99) = 0.0244
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that σ = 28.866. There
is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the sample is from a population with a
standard deviation equal to 28.866 cents. If the amounts from 0 to 99 cents follow a
uniform distribution, then the requirement of a normal distribution is not satisfied and the
conclusion is not necessarily valid.

original claim: σ = 1.34
Ho: σ = 1.34
H1: σ ≠ 1.34
α = 0.01 and df = 9
C.V. χ2 = χ 1-α/2
2
= χ 0.995
2
= 1.735
χ2 = χ α/2
2
= χ 0.005
2
= 23.589
0.005 0.005
calculations:
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 1.735 9 23.589 χ2 9
= (9)(1.1862)2/(1.34)2 = 7.053
P-value = 2·P( χ 92 < 7.053) = 0.7368
conclusion:
evidence to reject the claim that σ = 1.34.
There is not sufficient evidence to reject
the claim that recent Miss America winners are from a population whose BMI values have
a standard deviation of 1.34. No; recent winners do not appear to have MBI variation that
is different from that of the 1920’s and 1930’s.
original claim: σ = 0.470 kg
Ho: σ = 0.470 kg
H1: σ ≠ 0.470 kg
α = 0.05 [assumed] and df = 15
C.V. χ2 = χ 1-α/2
2
= χ 0.975
2
= 6.262
χ2 = χ α/2
2
= χ 0.025
2
= 27.488 0.025 0.025
calculations:
2.262 15 27.488 χ2
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 15
= (15)(.6573)2/(0.470)2 = 29.339
P-value = 2·P( χ 15 2
> 29.339) = 0.0291
conclusion:
reject the claim that σ = 0.470 and
conclude that σ ≠ 0.470 (in fact, that
σ > 0.470. There is sufficient evidence to reject that claim that male babies born to
mothers on the supplement are from a population whose birth weights have a standard
deviation equal to 0.470 kg. Yes; the supplement appears to increase the variation among
birth weights.
19. preliminary values: n = 12, Σx = -196, Σx2 = 33452, x = -16.3, s2 = 2750.06, s = 52.441
original claim: σ > 32.2 ft
Ho: σ = 32.2 ft
H1: σ > 32.2 ft
α = 0.05 and df = 11
C.V. χ2 = χ α2 = χ 0.05
2
= 19.675
calculations:
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 0.05
2 2
= (11)(52.441) /(32.2) = 29.176 11 19.675 χ2
11

P-value = P( χ 11
2
> 29.176) = 0.0021
conclusion:
Reject Ho; there is sufficient evidence
to conclude that σ > 32.2. There is
sufficient evidence to conclude that the production method has errors with a standard
deviation greater than 32.2 ft. A greater standard deviation means that the new altimeters
will have more spread in the errors (i.e., generally larger errors) than in the past – which
make the new method worse than the old method. Yes; the company should take action.
20. preliminary values: n = 16, Σx = 4154, Σx2 = 1,123,116, x = 259.6, s2 = 2975.58, s = 54.549
original claim: σ < 60 sec
Ho: σ = 60 sec
H1: σ < 60 sec
α = 0.05 and df = 15
C.V. χ2 = χ 1-α
2
= χ 0.95
2
= 7.261
calculations:
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2 0.05
2 2
= (15)(54.549) /(60) 7.261 15 χ2 15
= 12.398
P-value = P( χ 15
2
< 12.398 = 0.3513
conclusion:
evidence to conclude that σ < 60.
There is not sufficient evidence to
support the claim that the songs are from a population with a standard deviation less than
one minute.
21. lower χ2 = ½(-zα/2 + 2 ⋅ df - 1 )2 upper χ2 = ½(zα/2 + 2 ⋅ df - 1 )2

= ½(2.575 + 2 ⋅ (99) - 1 )2
= ½(-2.575 + 2 ⋅ (99) - 1 )2
= ½(2.575 + 197 )2
= ½(-2.575 + 197 )2
= ½(275.9143) = 137.957
= ½(131.3469) = 65.673
Since the χ 99
2
is shifted to the left (centered at df=99) compared to the χ 100
2
(centered at df=100)
used to give approximate values in Exercise 16, both values are slightly smaller as expected.
22. lower χ2 = df{1 – 2/[9(df)] – zα/2 2/9(df) }3

= 99{1 – 2/[9(99)] – 2.575 2/[9(99)] }3
= 99{1 – 2/891 – 2.575 2/891 }3
= 99{0.87476}3 = 66.495
upper χ2 = df{1 – 2/9(df) + zα/2 2/9(df) }3
= 99{1 – 2/[9(99)] + 2.575 2/[9(99)] }3
= 99{1 – 2/891 + 2.575 2/891 }3
= 99{1.11975}3 = 138.996

Statistical Literacy and Critical Thinking 285
Statistical Literacy and Critical Thinking
1. For testing a claim that µ > 0, that must be the alternative hypothesis – and the null hypothesis
must be that µ = 0. A P-value of 0.0091 indicates that the probability of obtaining these results
when the null hypothesis is true is only 0.0091. Such a P-value calls for the rejection of the
null hypothesis and support of the original claim that the mean rainfall amount is greater than 0
inches. The memory aid indicates that a small (e.g., less than 0.05) P-value calls for the
rejection of the null hypothesis and that a large (i.e., greater than 0,05) P-value indicates there
is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
2. Yes; since P-value = 0.0041 < 0.05, there is statistical significance. No; since 0.019 inches is
such a trivial amount (and is it even possible to measure heights of males that accurately?),
there is not practical significance.
3. A voluntary response sample is one in which the respondents themselves decide whether or not
to participate. Since such samples tend to include mostly those with a special interest in the
topic and/or strong feelings about the topic, they are not necessarily representative of the
general population and should not be used to make inferences.
4. A procedure is robust against departures from normality if it works well (i.e., is “correct” 1-α
of the time) even when the sample data are from a population that does not follow a normal
distribution. Yes; the t test of a population mean is robust against departures from normality.
No; the χ2 test of a population standard deviation is not robust against departures from
normality.
Chapter Quick Quiz
1. Since the claim that the proportion of males is greater than 0.5 does not contain the equality, it
must be the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that the proportion of males is equal
to 0.5. In symbolic form, Ho: p = 0.5 and H1: p > 0.5.
2. The t distribution is appropriate for the indicated test. The others are not appropriate for the
following reasons.
normal – used to perform a test about µ when σ is known..
chi-square – used to perform a test about σ.
binomial – used to perform an exact test about p.
uniform – not an appropriate sampling distribution for any sample statistic.
3. The chi-square distribution is appropriate for the indicated test. The others are not appropriate
for the following reasons.
normal – used to perform a test about µ when σ is known..
t – used to perform a test about µ when σ is unknown.
binomial – used to perform an exact test about p.
uniform – not an appropriate sampling distribution for any sample statistic.
4. True; the null hypothesis is either rejected or not rejected, but it cannot be supported.
5. Table A-2: P-value = 2·P(z>1.50) = 2·(1 – 0.9332) = 2·(0668) = 0.1336
Excel: P-value = 2*(1 – NORMSDIST(1.50)) = 0.1336

6. p̂ = x/n = 30/100 = 0.30

z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ = ( p̂ -p)/ pq/n
= (0.30 – 0.40)/ (0.40)(0.60) /100
= -0.10/0.04899 = -2.04
7. The appropriate distribution is the t distribution with n-1 = 19 degrees of freedom.
Table A-3: The critical values for the two-tailed test with α = 0.05 are ±t19,0.025 = ±2.093.
Excel: TINV(0.05,19) = 2.093
8. Table A-2: P-value = 2·P(z>1.20) = 2·(1 – 0.8849) = 2·(1151) = 0.2302
Excel: P-value = 2*(1 – NORMSDIST(1.20)) = 0.2301
9. Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that p > 0.25. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that p > 0.25.
10. False. Since hypothesis tests deal with a sample and not the entire population, there is always
the chance of an error. When the null hypothesis is true, for example, we expect to incorrectly
conclude that it is false α of the time.
Review Exercises

p̂ = x/n = 261/1088 = 0.240
Ho: p = 0.25
H1: p < 0.25
α = 0.05
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.05 = -1.645
calculations:
0.05
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂
0.25 ^
p
= (0.240 – 0.25)/ (0.25)(0.75) /1088 -1.645 0 z
= -0.01011/0.01313 = -0.77
P-value = P(z<-0.77) = 0.2206
conclusion:
sufficient evidence to support the claim that less than ¼ of such adults smoke.

p̂ = x/n = 802/1486 = 0.540
Ho: p = 0.50
H1: p > 0.50
α = 0.01
C.V. z = zα = z0.01 = 2.326
calculations: 0.01
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ 0.50 ^
p
0 2.326 z
= (0.540 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) /1486
= 0.03970/0.01297 = 3.06

Review Exercises 287
P-value = P(z>3.06) = 0.0011

conclusion:
conclude that p > 0.50. There is sufficient to
support the claim that most college students
seeking bachelor’s degrees earn those degrees within five years.
NOTE: Although it was not specifically stated so, it must be assumed that the “1486 college
students who are seeking bachelor’s degrees” were followed for five years before the study
was completed.

Ho: µ = 3700 lbs
H1: µ < 3700 lbs
α = 0.01 and df = 31
C.V. t = -tα = -t0.01 = -2.453
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x 0.01
= (3605.3 – 3700)/(501.7/ 32 ) _
3700 x
= -94.7/88.6889 -2.453 0 t 31
= -1.068
P-value = P(t9 < -1.068) = TDIST(1.068,31,1) = 0.1469
conclusion:
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean weight of cars is less than 3700 lbs.
While the mean weight of cars might be a factor in determining long run wear and tear, the
most relevant factor for determining the required strength for highways is the weight of the
heaviest vehicle that will be using the highway.

Ho: µ = 3700 lbs
H1: µ < 3700 lbs
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.01 = -2.326
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.01
_
= (3605.3 – 3700)/(520/ 32 ) 3700 x
-2.326 0 z
= -94.7/91.9239
= -1.030
P-value = P(z < -1.03) = NORMSDIST(-1.030) = 0.1515
conclusion:
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean weight of cars is less than 3700 lbs.
While the mean weight of cars might be a factor in determining long run wear and tear, the
most relevant factor for determining the required strength for highways is the weight of the
heaviest vehicle that will be using the highway.


p̂ = x/n = 5787/30617 = 0.1890
Ho: p = 0.20
H1: p < 0.20
α = 0.01
C.V. z = -zα = -z0.01 = -2.326
calculations: 0.01
z p̂ = ( p̂ – µ p̂ )/σ p̂ ^
0.20 p
-2.326 0 z
= (0.1890 – 0.20)/ (0.20)(0.80) / 30617
= -0.01099/0.002286 = -4.81
P-value = P(z<-4.81) < 0.0001
conclusion:
evidence to support the claim that fewer than 20% of adults consumed herbs within the
past 12 months.
6. original claim: µ < 281.8 lbs
Ho: µ = 281.8 lbs
H1: µ < 281.8 lbs
α = 0.01 and df = 174
C.V. t = -tα = -t0.01 = TINV(0.02,174) = -2.348
calculations: 0.01
t x = (x - µ)/s x _
281.8 x
= (267.1 – 281.8)/(22.1/ 175 ) -2.348 0 t
174
= -14.7/1.6706 = -8.799
P-value = P(t9 < -8.799) = TDIST(8.799,174,1) = 6.6E-16
conclusion:
evidence to support the claim that the thinner cans have a mean axial load that is less than
281.8 lbs. Yes; even though the thinner cans are not as strong as the thicker cans currently
in use, they apparently can easily withstand the necessary pressure of 158 to 165 lbs.
7. original claim: µ = 74
Ho: µ = 74
H1: µ ≠ 74
α = 0.05
C.V. z = ±zα/2 = ±z0.025 = ±1.96
calculations:
z x = (x - µ x )/σ x 0.025 0.025
= (74.4 – 74)/(12.5/ 100 ) _
74 x
= 0.4/1.25 -1.96 0 1.96 z
= 0.32
P-value = 2·P(z>0.32) = 2*(1 – NORMSINV(0.32) = 0.7490
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that µ = 74. There
is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that the sample comes from a population with
a mean equal to 74. Yes; based on these results, the calculator’s random number generator
appears to be working correctly.

Review Exercises 289
8. original claim: µ = 74
Ho: µ = 74
H1: µ ≠ 74
α = 0.05 and df = 99
C.V. t = ±tα/2 = ±t0.025 = ±TINV(0.05,99) = ±1.984
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x
0.025 0.025
= (74.4 – 74)/(11.7/ 100 ) _
74 x
= 0.4/1.17 -1.984 0 1.984 t 99
= 0.342
P-value = 2·P(t99 > 0.342) = TDIST(0.342,99,2) = 0.7332
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that µ = 74. There
a mean equal to 74. Yes; based on these results, the calculator’s random number generator
appears to be working correctly.
9. original claim: σ = 12.5

Ho: σ = 12.5
H1: σ ≠ 12.5
α = 0.05 and df = 99
CV χ2 = χ 1-α/2
2
= χ 0.975
2
= CHIINV(0.975,99) = 73.361
χ2 = χ α/2
2
= χ 0.025
2
= CHIINV(0.025,99) = 128.422 0.025 0.025
calculations: 73.361 99 128.422 χ2 99
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2
= (99)(11.7)2/(12.5)2
= 86.734
P-value = 2*(1 – CHIDIST(86.734,99)) = 0.3883
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that σ = 12.5. There
a standard deviation equal to 12.5.
10. original claim: σ < 520

Ho: σ = 520
H1: σ < 520
α = 0.01 and df = 31
C.V. χ2 = χ 1-α
2
= χ 0.99
2
= CHIINV(0.99,31) = 15.655
calculations: 0.01
χ2 = (n-1)s2/σ2
= (31)(501.7)2/(520)2 15.655 31 χ 2
31
= 28.856
P-value = 1 – CHI(28.856,31) = 0.4233
conclusion:
Do not reject Ho; there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that σ < 520. There is not
sufficient evidence to support the claim that the standard deviation of the weights of cars is
less than 520 lbs.

Cumulative Review Exercises
1. scores in numerical order: 10.54 10.75 10.82 10.93 10.94 10.97 11.06 11.07 11.08
summary statistics: n = 9, Σx = 98.16, Σx2 = 1070.8508
a. x = (Σx)/n = (98.16)/9 = 10.907 seconds Mean 10.90667
b. x = 10.94 seconds Standard Error 0.059208
c. s2 = [n(Σx2) – (Σx)2]/[n(n-1)] Median 10.94
= [9(1070.8508) – (98.16)2]/[9(8)] Mode #N/A
= 2.2716/72 = 0.03155 Standard Deviation 0.177623
s = 0.178 seconds Sample Variance 0.03155
d. s2 = 0.03155, rounded to 0.032 seconds2 Kurtosis 1.057734
e. R = 11.08 – 10.54 = 0.54 seconds Skewness -1.15628
Range 0.54
2. a. Ratio, since differences are meaningful and there is a
Minimum 10.54
meaningful zero.
Maximum 11.08
b. Continuous, since time can be any value on a continuum.
Sum 98.16
c. No; the times were not selected at random from some
Count 9
population, but they were determined by being the
winning times for 9 consecutive Olympics.
d. The sample statistics in Exercise 1 do not consider the chronological order of the data.
e. A time series plot will reveal tendencies over time, while still giving a general idea (by
looking from the vertical axis) of the central tendency and variation of the data.
3. σ unknown, use t with df=8
α = 0.05, tdf,α/2 = t8,0.025 = 2.306
x ± tα/2·s/ n
10.907 ± 2.306(0.178)/ 9
10.907 ± 0.136
10.770 < µ < 11.043 (seconds)
No; this result cannot be used to estimate winning times in the future because there is a pattern
of decreasing times and no fixed population mean.
4. original claim: µ < 11 seconds
Ho: µ = 11 seconds
H1: µ < 11 seconds
α = 0.05 and df = 8
C.V. t = -tα = -t0.05 = -1.860
calculations:
t x = (x - µ)/s x
0.05
= (10.907 - 11)/(0.178/ 9 ) _
11 x
= -0.0933/0.05921 = -1.576 -1.860 0 t 8
P-value = P(t9 < -1.576) = 0.0768

conclusion:
to conclude that µ < 11. There is not sufficient
evidence to support the claim that the mean
winning time is less than 11 seconds. Since there is a decreasing pattern of winning times
and no fixed population mean, this result does not apply to future times – but even though
the mean for past winning times is not significantly less than 11 seconds, the decreasing
pattern makes it likely that future winning times will be less than 11 seconds.

Cumulative Review Exercises 291
5. Some parts of this exercise are better answered from the x f f·x .
frequency distribution representation at the right, where the 0.70 1 0.70
x column gives the (approximate) midpoint value of each bar. 0.72 0 0.00
a. Yes; the histogram is approximately bell-shaped. 0.74 1 0.74
0.76 2 1.52
b. Σf = 100 0.78 5 3.90
c. Using the first two midpoints, 0.72 – 0.70 = 0.02 grams 0.80 8 6.40
d. Using the formula for summarized grouped data, 0.82 8 6.56
x ≈ (Σf·x)/(Σf) = 85.70/100 = 0.857 grams 0.84 13 10.92
e. No. All we can tell, for example, is that there are 30 values 0.86 30 25.80
0.88 15 13.20
in the class centered at 0.86 grams, but we cannot determine 0.90 3 2.70
their individual weights. 0.92 4 3.68
0.94 6 5.64
0.96 1 0.96
0.98 2 1.96
1.00 0 0.00
1.02 1 1.02
100 85.70
6. Using a vertical scale that does not start at zero exaggerates differences between the classes
and gives a distorted impression of the data. The visual impression of the first class (x=1), for
example, is that it contains about twice as many data points as the second class (x=2) – and in
reality those values are 16 and 13.
7. The requested frequency distribution is given by the first two x f f·x
columns of the table at the right. Using the formula for grouped 1 16 16
data, 2 13 26
x = (Σf·x)/(Σf) 3 22 66
4 21 84
= 347/100 5 13 65
= 3.47 6 15 90
100 347
8. For one test of hypothesis at the α = 0.05 level, the probability of making an error by rejecting
a true null hypothesis is given by P(E) = 0.05. For two such independent tests,
P(E1 and E2) = P(E1)·P(E2|E1) = (0.05)(0.05) = 0.0025.
9. For each part, use the formula z = (x – µ)/σ
a. P(x<700) = P(z<-1.18) = 0.1190
Excel: NORMDIST(700,739,33,1) = 0.1186
b. P(x>750) = P(z>0.33) = 1 – 0.6293 = 0.3707 = 37.07%
Excel: 1 – NORMDIST(750,739,33,1) = 0.3694 = 36.94%
c. The x ’s are normally distributed with
µ x = µ = 739 and
σ x = σ/ n = 33/ 50 = 4.6669.
P( x <730) = P(z<-1.93) = 0.0268
Excel: NORMDIST(730,739,33/SQRT(50),1) = 0.0269
d. From Table A-2, the z score with 0.9000 [closest entry is 0.8997]below it is 1.28.
x = µ + zσ = 739 + (1.28)(33) = 781.24 mm
Excel: NORMINV(0.90,739,33) = 781.29

Solutions Manual to accompany Elementary Statistics Using Excel 4th edition 0321564960
10. The sample heights appear to come from a normal distribution. The histogram shows a
distribution that is approximately bell-shaped, and the normal quantile plot indicates that the
data points approximate a straight line.
Normal Quantile Plot
5
2.0
1.0
Frequency
z score
0
2
-1.0
1
-2.0
0
740 760 780 800 820 840 700 750 800 850 900
Sitting Eye Heights (mm) Sitting Eye Heights (mm)
The Excel normal probability plot given

at the right is the normal quantile plot with
the axes reversed. It presents the same
visual conclusion as the normal quantile
plot.
NOTE: Other representations of the data may give different impressions, and so it is always
a good idea not to base a conclusion about normality on a
single figure. The reasonable representation of the data height (mm) frequency
given at the right, for example, suggests that the data may be 725 – 749 2
750 – 774 6
bimodal – perhaps representing two different subpopulations. 775 – 799 3
While frequency distributions and histograms are sensitive to 800 – 824 7
how the classes are defined, the normal quantile plot is not 825 – 846 2 .
subject to such arbitrary decisions. 20

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters

Solutions Manual To Accompany Elementary Statistics Using Excel 4th Edition 0321564960

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solutions Manual To Accompany Elementary Statistics Using Excel 4th Edition 0321564960

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solutions Manual to accompany Elementary

Statistics Using Excel 4th edition 0321564960

To download the complete and accurate content document, go to:

8-2 Basics of Hypothesis Testing

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

11. original claim: σ = 0.62 °F

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

23. Left-tailed test; place α = 0.005 in the lower tail.

26. p̂ = x/n = 462/1005 = 0.460

27. p̂ = x/n = 314/1122 = 0.280

28. p̂ = x/n = 870/1012 = 0.860

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

35. P-value <--------------------------------|

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

44. original claim: p < 0.60

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

a. The power calculations are given below

48. The test of hypothesis is given below

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

8-3 Testing a Claim About a Proportion

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

6. a. p̂ = x/n = 1864/2246 = 0.830

8. original claim: p < 0.05

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

9. original claim: p = 0.75

= (0.390 – 0.333)/ (1/ 3)(2 / 3) / 839

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

14. original claim: p < 0.50

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

19. original claim: p < 0.80

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

= (0.300 – 0.25)/ (0.25)(0.75) / 30

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

= (0.183 – 0.27)/ (0.27)(0.73) / 785

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

32. original claim: p = 0.25

= (0.130 – 0.20)/ (0.20)(0.80) /100

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

= (0.648 – 0.50)/ (0.50)(0.50) / 54

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

37. There are 35 total movies, 12 of which are rated R.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

39. original claim: p = 0.10

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

8-4 Testing a Claim About a Mean: σ Known

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

6. original claim: µ < 2.5 grams

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

9. original claim: µ = 0.8535 grams

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

12. original claim: µ ≠ 3.5

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

15. original claim: µ < $500,000

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

18. original claim: µ < 30 lbs

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Copyright © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.