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

"Smartest People Often Dumbest About Sunburns" is the headline of an article that appeared in the San Luis Obispo Tribune (July 19,2006 ). The article states that "those with a college degree reported a higher incidence of sunburn that those without a high school degree- \(43 \%\) versus \(25 \%\)." For purposes of this exercise, suppose that these percentages were based on random samples of size 200 from each of the two groups of interest (college graduates and those without a high school degree). Is there convincing evidence that the proportion experiencing a sunburn is higher for college graduates than it is for those without a high school degree? Answer based on a test with a .05 significance level.

Short Answer

Expert verified
The short answer to the exercise will depend on the calculated Z-value. If the Z-value is greater than 1.645, the answer would be 'Yes, there is convincing evidence at a 0.05 significance level that the proportion experiencing a sunburn is higher for college graduates than it is for those without a high school degree'. If the Z-value is less than or equal to 1.645, the answer would be 'No, there is not convincing evidence at a 0.05 significance level that the proportion experiencing a sunburn is higher for college graduates than it is for those without a high school degree'.

Step by step solution

01

- Setup the Hypotheses

The null hypothesis (H0) indicates no difference between the two population proportions while the alternative hypothesis (H1) indicates a higher proportion among the college graduates. Therefore: \n\nH0: p1 - p2 = 0 (where p1 is the proportion of college graduates who experience sunburn and p2 is the proportion of non-high school graduates who experience sunburn) \n\nH1: p1 - p2 > 0 (indicating a higher proportion of sunburn among college graduates)
02

- Calculate the Sample Proportions

Calculate the sample proportions using the percentages provided: \n\np1 = \(43 \% = 0.43\) (college graduates) \np2 = \(25 \% = 0.25\) (non-high school graduates) \nAlso, it is told that each group has a size of 200.
03

- Calculate the Test Statistic

The test statistic (Z) can be calculated using the formula: \n\nZ = \(\frac {(p1 - p2) - 0} {\sqrt {\frac {(p1(1-p1))} {n1} + \frac {(p2(1-p2))} {n2}}} \), where n1 and n2 are the sample sizes. Plugging in the numbers from the given data we get the Z value.
04

- Determine the Critical Value and Decision Rule

For a level of significance (α) of 0.05 and a one-tailed test, the critical value from the Z table is approximately 1.645. If the resulting test statistic is greater than 1.645, the null hypothesis will be rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, indicating a significant difference in sunburn rates between the two groups.
05

- Make a Decision and Interpret the Result

After calculating Z, compare it to the critical value. If Z > 1.645, reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is evidence to suggest that the proportion of college graduates experiencing sunburn is higher than the proportion of non-high school graduates experiencing sunburn. If Z ≤ 1.645, fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is no significant difference in sunburn rates among the two populations.

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.

Null Hypothesis
The null hypothesis is a foundational concept in hypothesis testing. It serves as the default or starting assumption, proposing that there is no effect or no difference between two compared groups. In the context of our sunburn study, the null hypothesis asserts that the incidence of sunburn is the same for both college graduates and non-high school graduates.

Formally, the null hypothesis is denoted as H0: p1 - p2 = 0, where p1 and p2 represent the population proportions of the two groups in question. If our test concludes that the data significantly deviates from this hypothesis, we may have grounds to reject it. Otherwise, we lack sufficient evidence and therefore retain it, maintaining that there's no significant difference.
Alternative Hypothesis
Conversely, the alternative hypothesis is the opposite of the null hypothesis, indicating that there is an effect or a difference between the groups being compared. In our sunburn example, the alternative hypothesis posits that college graduates have a higher incidence of sunburn compared to those without a high school degree.

The alternative hypothesis can be expressed as H1: p1 - p2 > 0, suggesting that the proportion p1 is greater than p2. It is what researchers are typically trying to gather evidence for, as finding support for the alternative hypothesis can indicate a need for a change in belief or policy.
Test Statistic
The test statistic is a calculated value that we compare to a critical value in order to make a decision about the hypotheses. It quantifies the difference between the observed sample result and what we would expect under the null hypothesis, standardized by the variability in the data.

For the sunburn study, the test statistic is a Z-score given by Z = \(\frac{(p1 - p2) - 0}{\sqrt{\frac{p1(1-p1)}{n1} + \frac{p2(1-p2)}{n2}}}\) where p1 and p2 are the sample proportions and n1 and n2 are the sizes of the respective samples. A larger absolute value of the test statistic indicates a larger difference between the groups and provides stronger evidence against the null hypothesis.
Level of Significance
The level of significance, often denoted by α (alpha), is the probability threshold at which we reject the null hypothesis. It reflects the risk we are willing to take of incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true, an error known as a Type I error.

In our sunburn study, a .05 significance level means there’s a 5% chance we would reject the null hypothesis due to random sampling error when there is actually no difference in the population. The critical value associated with our chosen level of significance helps us to make the decision: if our test statistic exceeds this value, we reject the null hypothesis.
Sample Proportions
Sample proportions are estimates of the population proportions that we derive from our data. They provide insight into the characteristics of the population from which the sample was drawn. In our exercise, the calculated sample proportions are p1 = 43% and p2 = 25% for college graduates and non-high school graduates, respectively.

These sample proportions are essential in assessing the variability of the outcomes and are used to compute the test statistic. It's crucial to use a random sample, as it allows the sample proportions to be more representative of the population, More accurate sample proportions mean a more reliable test statistic and hence, a more trustworthy hypothesis test.

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

Women diagnosed with breast cancer whose tumors have not spread may be faced with a decision between two surgical treatments - mastectomy (removal of the breast) or lumpectomy (only the tumor is removed). In a long-term study of the effectiveness of these two treatments, 701 women with breast cancer were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups. One group received mastectomies and the other group received lumpectomies and radiation. Both groups were followed for 20 years after surgery. It was reported that there was no statistically significant difference in the proportion surviving for 20 years for the two treatments (Associated Press, October 17,2002 ). What hypotheses do you think the researchers tested in order to reach the given conclusion? Did the researchers reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis?

Two different underground pipe coatings for preventing corrosion are to be compared. The effect of a coating (as measured by maximum depth of corrosion penetration on a piece of pipe) may vary with depth, orientation, soil type, pipe composition, etc. Describe how an experiment that filters out the effects of these extraneous factors could be carried out.

In the experiment described in the paper "Exposure to Diesel Exhaust Induces Changes in EEG in Human Volunteers" (Particle and Fibre Toxicology [2007])\(, 10\) healthy men were exposed to diesel exhaust for 1 hour. A measure of brain activity (called median power frequency, or MPF) was recorded at two different locations in the brain both before and after the diesel exhaust exposure. The resulting data are given in the accompanying table. For purposes of this example, assume that it is reasonable to regard the sample of 10 men as representative of healthy adult males. $$ \begin{array}{ccrcr} \hline & \text { Location 1 } & \text { Location 1 } & \text { Location 2 } & \text { Location 2 } \\ \text { Subject } & \text { Before } & \text { After } & \text { Before } & \text { After } \\ \hline 1 & 6.4 & 8.0 & 6.9 & 9.4 \\ 2 & 8.7 & 12.6 & 9.5 & 11.2 \\ 3 & 7.4 & 8.4 & 6.7 & 10.2 \\ 4 & 8.7 & 9.0 & 9.0 & 9.6 \\ 5 & 9.8 & 8.4 & 9.7 & 9.2 \\ 6 & 8.9 & 11.0 & 9.0 & 11.9 \\ 7 & 9.3 & 14.4 & 7.9 & 9.1 \\ 8 & 7.4 & 11.3 & 8.3 & 9.3 \\ 9 & 6.6 & 7.1 & 7.2 & 8.0 \\ 10 & 8.9 & 11.2 & 7.4 & 9.1 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ a. Do the data provide convincing evidence that the mean MPF at brain location 1 is higher after diesel exposure? Test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of \(.05 .\) b. Construct and interpret a \(90 \%\) confidence interval estimate for the difference in mean MPF at brain location 2 before and after exposure to diesel exhaust.

The paper "If It's Hard to Read, It's Hard to Do" (Psychological Science [2008]\(: 986-988)\) described an interesting study of how people perceive the effort required to do certain tasks. Each of 20 students was randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group was given instructions for an exercise routine that were printed in an easy-to-read font (Arial). The other group received the same set of instructions, but printed in a font that is considered difficult to read (Brush). After reading the instructions, subjects estimated the time (in minutes) they thought it would take to complete the exercise routine. Summary statistics are given below. $$ \begin{array}{ccc} & \text { Easy font } & \text { Difficult font } \\ \hline n & 10 & 10 \\ \bar{x} & 8.23 & 15.10 \\ s & 5.61 & 9.28 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ The authors of the paper used these data to carry out a two-sample \(t\) test, and concluded that at the .10 significance level, there was convincing evidence that the mean estimated time to complete the exercise routine was less when the instructions were printed in an easy-to-read font than when printed in a difficult-to-read font. Discuss the appropriateness of using a two-sample \(t\) test in this situation.

The article "Plugged In, but Tuned Out" (USA Today, January 20,2010 ) summarizes data from two surveys of kids age 8 to 18 . One survey was conducted in 1999 and the other was conducted in \(2009 .\) Data on number of hours per day spent using electronic media that are consistent with summary quantities given in the article are given below (the actual sample sizes for the two surveys were much larger). For purposes of this exercise, assume that it is reasonable to regard the two samples as representative of kids age 8 to 18 in each of the 2 years that the surveys were conducted. $$ \begin{array}{l|lllllllllllllll} \hline 2009 & 5 & 9 & 5 & 8 & 7 & 6 & 7 & 9 & 7 & 9 & 6 & 9 & 10 & 9 & 8 \\ 1999 & 4 & 5 & 7 & 7 & 5 & 7 & 5 & 6 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 5 & 6 & 6 \\ \hline \end{array} $$ a. Because the given sample sizes are small, in order for the two-sample \(t\) test to be appropriate, what assumption must be made about the distribution of electronic media use times? Use the given data to construct graphical displays that would be useful in determining whether this assumption is reasonable. Do you think it is reasonable to use these data to carry out a two-sample \(t\) test? b. Do the given data provide convincing evidence that the mean number of hours per day spent using electronic media was greater in 2009 than in 1999 ? Test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of .01 c. Construct and interpret a \(98 \%\) confidence interval estimate of the difference between the mean number of hours per day spent using electronic media in 2009 and 1999 .

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