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

A television manufacturer claims that (at least) \(90 \%\) of its TV sets will need no service during the first 3 years of operation. A consumer agency wishes to check this claim, so it obtains a random sample of \(n=100\) purchasers and asks each whether the set purchased needed repair during the first 3 years after purchase. Let \(\hat{p}\) be the sample proportion of responses indicating no repair (so that no repair is identified with a success). Let \(p\) denote the actual proportion of successes for all sets made by this manufacturer. The agency does not want to claim false advertising unless sample evidence strongly suggests that \(p<.9 .\) The appropriate hypotheses are then \(H_{0}: p=.9\) versus \(H_{a}: p<.9\). a. In the context of this problem, describe Type I and Type II errors, and discuss the possible consequences of each. b. Would you recommend a test procedure that uses \(\alpha=.10\) or one that uses \(\alpha=.01 ?\) Explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Type I Error: Falsely claiming false advertising, consequences might involve damaging the manufacturer's reputation and possible legal issues. Type II Error: Not catching false advertising when it occurs, consequences involve consumers buying a product under false assumptions. An alpha level of 0.10 might be more appropriate given the context of the problem.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Hypotheses

First, define the null hypothesis \(H_0\): this manufacturer's TV sets have exactly a 0.9 probability of needing no service in the first three years. The alternative hypothesis \(H_a\): the proportion of TV sets that need no service in the first 3 years is less than 0.9.
02

Conceptualize Type I and II Errors

A Type I error occurs when you reject the null hypothesis, but it is actually true. In this context, a Type I error would be claiming the manufacturer is falsely advertising, even though there is a 90% probability that the TVs will need no service in the first three years. A Type II error, on the other hand, happens when you do not reject the null hypothesis when it is in fact false. In this scenario, a Type II error would occur if the consumer agency did not claim the manufacturer was falsely advertising and the probability of the TVs needing no service in the first three years was less than 90%.
03

Assess the Consequences of Errors

The consequence of a Type I error would be wrongfully accusing the manufacturer of false advertising, which could damage the manufacturer's reputation and possibly lead to legal implications. The consequence of a Type II error would be failing to identify false advertising, leading to consumers buying the product under a wrong assumption.
04

Choose the Appropriate Significance Level

The appropriate significance level depends on weighing the consequences of Type I and II errors. An alpha level of 0.10 increases the probability of making a Type I error (claiming false advertising when the claim is true). An alpha level of 0.01, while reducing the chance of a Type I error, increases the likelihood of a Type II error (failing to identify false advertising when it exists). Given the context, it would be less harmful to the consumers to falsely accusing the manufacturer (Type I error), than failing to catch false advertising (Type II error). Therefore, an alpha level of 0.10 might be recommended.

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!

Key Concepts

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

Type I and Type II Errors
When conducting hypothesis testing, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II errors. These are crucial concepts in the statistical field, as they help to understand the potential mistakes that can be made when making decisions based on sample data. Let's explore each one.

Type I Error

Type I error, also known as a false positive, happens when the null hypothesis is true, but we mistakenly reject it. For the TV manufacturer scenario, committing a Type I error would lead the consumer agency to conclude that less than 90% of TV sets will need no service, while the claim is accurate. This could undesirably harm the manufacturer's reputation and might involve legal consequences.

Type II Error

Conversely, a Type II error, or false negative, occurs when the null hypothesis is false, but we fail to reject it. In our television example, this would mean the agency does not flag the manufacturer for false advertising when, in fact, over 10% of TV sets do require service within the first three years. This might leave consumers misled, purchasing products based on incorrect information.

Understanding these errors is critical because it impacts how we set the threshold for making decisions, balancing the risk of both types of errors. The significance level we choose influences the likelihood of each error type.
Sample Proportion
The concept of sample proportion, denoted as \(\hat{p}\), is an estimate that refers to the fraction of items in a sample that have a particular attribute. In our exercise, the sample proportion represents the percentage of TV sets from the sample that did not require repair in the first three years. It serves as a practical estimate of the population proportion (\(p\)), the true proportion of all TV sets made by the manufacturer that will not need service during that time.

Sample proportions are used in hypothesis testing to compare against a claimed population proportion (the null hypothesis). As such, they are pivotal in determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support or refute a claim, in this case, the manufacturer’s assertion about their TV sets’ durability.
Null and Alternative Hypotheses
Hypothesis testing is a systematic way to evaluate claims about a population based on sample data. Each test involves two competing statements: the null hypothesis (\(H_0\)) and the alternative hypothesis (\(H_a\)).

The null hypothesis is essentially the statement being tested and is assumed true until evidence suggests otherwise. It often represents a status quo or a claim that there is no effect or difference. For our scenario, the null hypothesis is that the true proportion of TV sets not requiring service is 90% (\(p = 0.9\)).

The alternative hypothesis contradicts the null hypothesis and is what you suspect might be true instead. It represents a new claim aiming to provide evidence against the null. In the context of the television sets, the alternative hypothesis is that the true proportion needing no service is less than 90% (\(H_a: p < 0.9\)). The type of alternative hypothesis (one-tailed or two-tailed) guides the direction in which we look for evidence against the null hypothesis in our statistical test.
Significance Level
The significance level, denoted by \(\alpha\), represents the threshold for deciding whether observed data is statistically significant. It is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true, thus the probability of making a Type I error. In simpler terms, it's the level of risk you are willing to accept to erroneously conclude an effect or difference exists.

Commonly used significance levels are 0.05, 0.01, and 0.10. A lower \(\alpha\) value indicates a more strict criterion for claiming significance, reducing the risk of Type I errors. The trade-off, however, is generally an increased risk of Type II errors. Selecting the appropriate significance level depends on the relative cost of the errors in the context. For instance, a 0.10 significance level might be chosen if the consumer agency prioritized minimizing false negatives (Type II error) over false positives (Type I error), accepting a slightly higher likelihood of accusing the manufacturer without sufficient evidence.

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

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

In a study of computer use, 1000 randomly selected Canadian Internet users were asked how much time they spend using the Internet in a typical week (Ipsos Reid, August 9,2005 ). The mean of the sample observations was 12.7 hours. a. The sample standard deviation was not reported, but suppose that it was 5 hours. Carry out a hypothesis test with a significance level of .05 to decide if there is convincing evidence that the mean time spent using the Internet by Canadians is greater than 12.5 hours. b. Now suppose that the sample standard deviation was 2 hours. Carry out a hypothesis test with a significance level of .05 to decide if there is convincing evidence that the mean time spent using the Internet by Canadians is greater than 12.5 hours. c. Explain why the null hypothesis was rejected in the test of Part (b) but not in the test of Part (a).

In a survey of 1005 adult Americans, \(46 \%\) indicated that they were somewhat interested or very interested in having web access in their cars (USA Today, May I. 2009 ). Suppose that the marketing manager of a car manufacturer claims that the \(46 \%\) is based only on a sample and that \(46 \%\) is close to half, so there is no reason to believe that the proportion of all adult Americans who want car web access is less than \(.50 .\) Is the marketing manager correct in his claim? Provide statistical evidence to support your answer. For purposes of this exercise, assume that the sample can be considered as representative of adult Americans.

The article "Boy or Girl: Which Gender Baby Would You Pick?" (LiveScience, March 23. 2005 , www.livescience.com) summarized the findings of a study that was published in Fertility and Sterility. The LiveScience article makes the following statements: "When given the opportunity to choose the sex of their baby, women are just as likely to choose pink socks as blue, a new study shows" and "Of the 561 women who participated in the study, 229 said they would like to choose the sex of a future child. Among these 229 , there was no greater demand for boys or girls." These statements are equivalent to the claim that for women who would like to choose the baby's sex, the proportion who would choose a girl is 0.50 or \(50 \%\). a. The journal article on which the LiveScience summary was based ("Preimplantation Sex-Selection Demand and Preferences in an Infertility Population," Fertility and Sterility [2005]: \(649-658\) ) states that of the 229 women who wanted to select the baby's sex, 89 wanted a boy and 140 wanted a girl. Does this provide convincing evidence against the statement of no preference in the LiveScience summary? Test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha=\) .05. Be sure to state any assumptions you must make about the way the sample was selected in order for your test to be appropriate. b. The journal article also provided the following information about the study: \- A survey with 19 questions was mailed to 1385 women who had visited the Center for Reproductive Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital. \- 561 women returned the survey. Do you think it is reasonable to generalize the results from this survey to a larger population? Do you have any concerns about the way the sample was selected or about potential sources of bias? Explain.

The paper titled "Music for Pain Relief" (The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, April 19 , 2006 ) concluded, based on a review of 51 studies of the effect of music on pain intensity, that "Listening to music reduces pain intensity levels ... However, the magnitude of these positive effects is small, the clinical relevance of music for pain relief in clinical practice is unclear." Are the authors of this paper claiming that the pain reduction attributable to listening to music is not statistically significant, not practically significant, or neither statistically nor practically significant? Explain.

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