Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Many people have misconceptions about how profitable small, consistent investments can be. In a survey of 1010 randomly selected U.S. adults (Associated Press, October 29,1999 ), only 374 responded that they thought that an investment of \(\$ 25\) per week over 40 years with a \(7 \%\) annual return would result in a sum of over \(\$ 100,000\) (the correct amount is \(\$ 286,640\) ). Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that less than \(40 \%\) of U.S. adults are aware that such an investment would result in a sum of over \(\$ 100,000\) ? Test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha=.05\).

Short Answer

Expert verified
Yes, there is enough evidence to support the claim that less than 40% of U.S. adults know that investing $25 per week for 40 years at 7% annual return would yield more than $100,000.

Step by step solution

01

Formulate the null and alternative hypotheses

The null hypothesis \(H_0\) would be that 40 percent (.40) of people knows that the regular small investment over the 40 years would result in > $100,000. Formally, \(H_0: p = 0.40\). The alternative hypothesis \(H_A\) is that less than 40% of people know this, so formally, \(H_A: p < 0.40\).
02

Compute the sample proportion

To find the sample proportion, divide the number who responded affirmatively by the total number of respondents. It’s \(p' = 374/1010 = 0.37\). It shows that 37% (less than 40%) of surveyed population have this knowledge.
03

Check the sampling distribution

The sampling distribution should be approximately normally distributed. This can be tested using these inequalities: \(np_0 > 5\) and \(n(1 - p_0) > 5\). Both \(1010 * 0.40 = 404\) and \(1010 * 0.60 = 606\) are more than 5. So, the approximation of a normal distribution can be used.
04

Calculate Standard Error and Z-Score

We calculate the standard deviation (Standard Error - SE) of the sampling distribution by the formula: SE = \(\sqrt{[p_0 * (1 - p_0)]/n}\) where \(p_0\) is the population proportion under \(H_0\) and n is the total survey count. So, SE = \(\sqrt{ [(0.40 * 0.60) / 1010] } = 0.0156\). Then, we find the Z-score which is the number of standard deviations the observed sample proportion \(p'\) is from the expected population proportion \(p_0\). So, Z = \((p' - p_0) / SE = (0.37 - 0.40) / 0.0156 = -1.923\).
05

Making a decision

Then, check Z-table for the probability associated with -1.923, which is 0.0274. We see that the p-value is 0.0274 which is less than our chosen alpha level of 0.05. This means we reject the null hypothesis. That is, we have sufficient evidence to support the claim that less than 40% of U.S. adults are aware that such an investment would result in a sum of over $100,000.

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

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

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

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The National Cancer Institute conducted a 2-year study to determine whether cancer death rates for areas near nuclear power plants are higher than for areas without nuclear facilities (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, September 17,1990 ). A spokesperson for the Cancer Institute said, "From the data at hand, there was no convincing evidence of any increased risk of death from any of the cancers surveyed due to living near nuclear facilities. However, no study can prove the absence of an effect." a. Let \(\pi\) denote the true proportion of the population in areas near nuclear power plants who die of cancer during a given year. The researchers at the Cancer Institute might have considered the two rival hypotheses of the form \(H_{0}: \pi=\) value for areas without nuclear facilities \(H_{a}: \pi>\) value for areas without nuclear facilities Did the researchers reject \(H_{0}\) or fail to reject \(H_{0}\) ? b. If the Cancer Institute researchers were incorrect in their conclusion that there is no increased cancer risk associated with living near a nuclear power plant, are they making a Type I or a Type II error? Explain. c. Comment on the spokesperson's last statement that no study can prove the absence of an effect. Do you agree with this statement?

Duck hunting in populated areas faces opposition on the basis of safety and environmental issues. The San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (June 18,1991 ) reported the results of a survey to assess public opinion regarding duck hunting on Morro Bay (located along the central coast of California). A random sample of 750 local residents included 560 who strongly opposed hunting on the bay. Does this sample provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the majority of local residents oppose hunting on Morro Bay? Test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha=.01\).

Students at the Akademia Podlaka conducted an experiment to determine whether the Belgium-minted Euro coin was equally likely to land heads up or tails up. Coins were spun on a smooth surface, and in 250 spins, 140 landed with the heads side up (New Scientist, January 4 , 2002). Should the students interpret this result as convincing evidence that the proportion of the time the coin would land heads up is not .5? Test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha=.01\). Would your conclusion be different if a significance level of \(.05\) had been used? Explain.

Give as much information as you can about the \(P\) -value of a \(t\) test in each of the following situations: a. Two-tailed test, \(\mathrm{df}=9, t=0.73\) b. Upper-tailed test, \(\mathrm{df}=10, t=-0.5\) c. Lower-tailed test, \(n=20, t=-2.1\) d. Lower-tailed test, \(n=20, t=-5.1\) e. Two-tailed test, \(n=40, t=1.7\)

Use the definition of the \(P\) -value to explain the following: a. Why \(H_{0}\) would certainly be rejected if \(P\) -value \(=.0003\) b. Why \(H_{0}\) would definitely not be rejected if \(P\) -value \(=\) \(.350\)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free