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

The press release referenced in the previous exercise also included data from independent surveys of teenage drivers and parents of teenage drivers. In response to a question asking if they approved of laws banning the use of cell phones and texting while driving, \(74 \%\) of the teens surveyed and \(95 \%\) of the parents surveyed said they approved. The sample sizes were not given in the press release, but for purposes of this exercise, suppose that 600 teens and 400 parents of teens responded to the surveys and that it is reasonable to regard these samples as representative of the two populations. Do the data provide convincing evidence that the proportion of teens that approve of cell- phone and texting bans while driving is less than the proportion of parents of teens who approve? Test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of .05

Short Answer

Expert verified
Without doing the actual calculations, it's impossible to give a precise answer. However, based on the steps provided, one would compare the calculated test statistic with the critical value (-1.645), to either reject or not reject the null hypothesis at the .05 significance level.

Step by step solution

01

State the hypotheses

The null hypothesis \(H_0\) assumes that there is no difference between the proportion of teens and the proportion of parents who approve of texting bans while driving. Technically, it can be stated as \(p_{teens} = p_{parents}\). The alternative hypothesis \(H_a\) which we are testing for indicates that a larger proportion of parents approve of the ban than teens: \(p_{teens} < p_{parents}\). Be sure to define your parameters, where \(p_{teens}\) is the population proportion of teens who approve of the ban, and \(p_{parents}\) is the population proportion of parents who approve of the ban.
02

Find the sample proportions and variances

Using the provided sample data, calculate the sample proportions \(\hat{p}_{teens}\) and \(\hat{p}_{parents}\). \(\hat{p}_{teens} = 0.74\) and \(\hat{p}_{parents} = 0.95\). Also, the numbers of teens and parents surveyed were 600 and 400, respectively. Therefore, \(n_{teens} = 600\) and \(n_{parents} = 400\).
03

Calculate the test statistic

First, calculate the combined (pooled) sample proportion \(\hat{p}\). \(\hat{p} = \frac{n_{teens} * \hat{p}_{teens} + n_{parents} * \hat{p}_{parents}}{n_{teens} + n_{parents}}\). Then, the test statistic \(Z\) is calculated as \(Z = \frac{\hat{p}_{teens} - \hat{p}_{parents}}{\sqrt{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})(\frac{1}{n_{teens}} + \frac{1}{n_{parents}})}}\).
04

Determine the critical value and compare with test statistic

Given the significance level \(.05\) and the nature of the alternate hypothesis \(p_{teens} < p_{parents}\) which is one-tailed, find the critical value for Z from the Z-table. The critical Z-score for a one-tailed test at the .05 significance level is -1.645. Compare this critical value to your calculated test statistic. If the test statistic is smaller, reject the null hypothesis.
05

Conclusion

Based on the comparison, if we reject the null hypothesis, it suggests there is significant evidence to conclude that the proportion of teens that approve of cell-phone and texting bans while driving is less than the proportion of parents of teens who approve. If we fail to reject the null hypothesis, it means there is not enough evidence at the .05 significance level to support the claim that a larger proportion of parents approve of the ban than teens.

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.

Understanding the Null Hypothesis
In hypothesis testing, the null hypothesis, denoted as \(H_0\), serves as a starting point. It's a statement that assumes no effect or no difference between groups.
For example, in our case, the null hypothesis is \(p_{teens} = p_{parents}\). This means we start by assuming that both teens and parents have the same approval rate for bans on cell phone use while driving.
  • Purpose: It provides a baseline measure for the statistical test.
  • Role: If our test results significantly differ from \(H_0\), we may reject it.
Remember, even if the null hypothesis is not supported by the data, that's only part of the analysis.
Exploring the Alternative Hypothesis
The alternative hypothesis, signified as \(H_a\), is what you want to test for. It offers an alternative to the null hypothesis and suggests some effect or difference.
In this example, we have \(p_{teens} < p_{parents}\). This suggests that teens might actually approve less of these bans than parents do.
  • Challenge: To find enough statistical evidence to support \(H_a\).
  • Possibility: If the evidence is strong enough, we reject the null in favor of \(H_a\).
Always clearly define both hypotheses before beginning any calculations.
Significance Level in Hypothesis Testing
The significance level, often denoted by \(\alpha\), represents the threshold for rejecting the null hypothesis. It reflects the probability of rejecting \(H_0\) when it is actually true.
In our task, we're using a significance level of 0.05. This means that there's a 5% risk of concluding that a difference exists when there is none.
  • Setting \(\alpha\): Typically, values are 0.05, 0.01, or 0.10, based on how rigorous you want to be.
  • Comparison: Critical in deciding to accept or reject \(H_0\).
A smaller \(\alpha\) means you're more cautious about accepting \(H_a\).
Applying the Z-Test
The Z-test is a statistical method used to determine if there's a significant difference between the proportions of two groups. It helps evaluate our hypotheses.
First, calculate the combined (pooled) sample proportion \(\hat{p}\) and then the Z-test statistic using the formula:\[Z = \frac{\hat{p}_{teens} - \hat{p}_{parents}}{\sqrt{\hat{p}(1-\hat{p})(\frac{1}{n_{teens}} + \frac{1}{n_{parents}})}}\]
  • Interpret: Compare the Z-test statistic to the critical Z-score.
  • Outcome: Determine if the calculated Z is in the critical region.
A Z less than -1.645 at a 0.05 level challenges \(H_0\). This indicates there might be a significant difference, leaning towards the alternative hypothesis.

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 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety issued a press release titled "Teen Drivers Often Ignoring Bans on Using Cell Phones" (June 9,2008 ). The following quote is from the press release: Just \(1-2\) months prior to the ban's Dec. 1,2006 start, 11 percent of teen drivers were observed using cell phones as they left school in the afternoon. About 5 months after the ban took effect, \(12 \%\) of teen drivers were observed using cell phones. Suppose that the two samples of teen drivers (before the ban, after the ban) can be regarded as representative of these populations of teen drivers. Suppose also that 200 teen drivers were observed before the ban (so \(n_{1}=200\) and \(\hat{p}_{1}=.11\) ) and 150 teen drivers were observed after the ban. a. Construct and interpret a \(95 \%\) confidence interval for the difference in the proportion using a cell phone while driving before the ban and the proportion after the ban. b. Is zero included in the confidence interval of Part (c)? What does this imply about the difference in the population proportions?

The article "Spray Flu Vaccine May Work Better Than Injections for Tots" (San Luis Obispo Tribune, May 2,2006 ) described a study that compared flu vaccine administered by injection and flu vaccine administered as a nasal spray. Each of the 8000 children under the age of 5 who participated in the study received both a nasal spray and an injection, but only one was the real vaccine and the other was salt water. At the end of the flu season, it was determined that \(3.9 \%\) of the 4000 children receiving the real vaccine by nasal spray got sick with the flu and \(8.6 \%\) of the 4000 receiving the real vaccine by injection got sick with the flu. a. Why would the researchers give every child both a nasal spray and an injection? b. Use the given data to estimate the difference in the proportion of children who get sick with the flu after being vaccinated with an injection and the proportion of children who get sick with the flu after being vaccinated with the nasal spray using a \(99 \%\) confidence interval. Based on the confidence interval, would you conclude that the proportion of children who get the flu is different for the two vaccination methods?

The paper "Effects of Fast-Food Consumption on Energy Intake and Diet Quality Among Children in a National Household Survey" ( Pediatrics [2004]: 112 118 ) investigated the effect of fast-food consumption on other dietary variables. For a sample of 663 teens who reported that they did not eat fast food during a typical day, the mean daily calorie intake was 2258 and the sample standard deviation was \(1519 .\) For a sample of 413 teens who reported that they did eat fast food on a typical day, the mean calorie intake was 2637 and the standard deviation was 1138 . a. What assumptions about the two samples must be reasonable in order for the use of the two-sample \(t\) confidence interval to be appropriate? b. Use the given information to estimate the difference in mean daily calorie intake for teens who do eat fast food on a typical day and those who do not.

The study described in the paper "Marketing Actions Can Modulate Neural Representation of Experienced Pleasantness" (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science [2008]\(: 1050-1054)\) investigated whether price affects people's judgment. Twenty people each tasted six cabernet sauvignon wines and rated how they liked them on a scale of 1 to 6 . Prior to tasting each wine, participants were told the price of the wine. Of the six wines tasted, two were actually the same wine, but for one tasting the participant was told that the wine cost \(\$ 10\) per bottle and for the other tasting the participant was told that the wine cost \(\$ 90\) per bottle. The participants were randomly assigned either to taste the \(\$ 90\) wine first and the \(\$ 10\) wine second, or the \(\$ 10\) wine first and the \(\$ 90\) wine second. Differences (computed by subtracting the rating for the tasting in which the participant thought the wine cost \(\$ 10\) from the rating for the tasting in which the participant thought the wine cost \(\$ 90\) ) were computed. The differences that follow are consistent with summary quantities given in the paper. Difference \((\$ 90-\$ 10)\) \(\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccccc}2 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 3 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 1 & 4 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 1 & -1\end{array}\) Carry out a hypothesis test to determine if the mean rating assigned to the wine when the cost is described as \(\$ 90\) is greater than the mean rating assigned to the wine when the cost is described as \(\$ 10 .\) Use \(\alpha=.01\)

In December 2001 , the Department of Veterans Affairs announced that it would begin paying benefits to soldiers suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease who had served in the Gulf War (The New york Times, December 11,2001 ). This decision was based on an analysis in which the Lou Gehrig's disease incidence rate (the proportion developing the disease) for the approximately 700,000 soldiers sent to the Gulf between August 1990 and July 1991 was compared to the incidence rate for the approximately 1.8 million other soldiers who were not in the Gulf during this time period. Based on these data, explain why it is not appropriate to perform a formal inference procedure (such as the two-sample \(z\) test) and yet it is still reasonable to conclude that the incidence rate is higher for Gulf War veterans than for those who did not serve in the Gulf War.

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