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

For each situation described, indicate whether it makes more sense to use a relatively large significance level (such as \(\alpha=0.10\) ) or a relatively small significance level (such as \(\alpha=0.01\) ). A pharmaceutical company is testing to see whether its new drug is significantly better than the existing drug on the market. It is more expensive than the existing drug. Which significance level would the company prefer? Which significance level would the consumer prefer?

Short Answer

Expert verified
The pharmaceutical company would prefer a larger significance level (such as \(\alpha = 0.10\)) because it increases the chances of confirming their claim that the new drug is better. On the contrary, the consumer would prefer a smaller significance level (such as \(\alpha = 0.01\)) to minimize the risk of believing that the new (and more expensive) drug is better when it might not be.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the role of significance level

Statistically, the significance level, also denoted as \(\alpha\), is the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true. This is known as a false positive or Type I error. A smaller value of \(\alpha\) means fewer chances of making a type I error, whereas a larger value of \(\alpha\) makes it easier to reject the null hypothesis, hence increasing the chances of a type I error.
02

Analyze the pharmaceutical company's position

The pharmaceutical company wants to prove that the new drug is significantly better. So, they would prefer the larger significance level of \(\alpha = 0.10\), which increases the chances of them rejecting the null hypothesis (that the new drug is not better). They would run the risk of a Type I error (false positive), i.e., believing the new drug is better, when it actually is not.
03

Analyze the consumer's position

On the other hand, consumers would prefer a more cautious approach because they would want to minimize the risk of believing the new drug is better when it actually isn't, especially given the new drug is more expensive. Therefore, they would prefer the smaller significance level of \(\alpha = 0.01\).

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

We are conducting many hypothesis tests to test a claim. In every case, assume that the null hypothesis is true. Approximately how many of the tests will incorrectly find significance? 100 tests conducted using a significance level of \(5 \%\).

In Exercise 3.89 on page \(239,\) we found a \(95 \%\) confidence interval for the difference in proportion of rats showing compassion, using the proportion of female rats minus the proportion of male rats, to be 0.104 to \(0.480 .\) In testing whether there is a difference in these two proportions: (a) What are the null and alternative hypotheses? (b) Using the confidence interval, what is the conclusion of the test? Include an indication of the significance level. (c) Based on this study would you say that female rats or male rats are more likely to show compassion (or are the results inconclusive)?

Data 4.3 on page 265 introduces a situation in which a restaurant chain is measuring the levels of arsenic in chicken from its suppliers. The question is whether there is evidence that the mean level of arsenic is greater than \(80 \mathrm{ppb},\) so we are testing \(H_{0}: \mu=80\) vs \(H_{a}:\) \(\mu>80,\) where \(\mu\) represents the average level of arsenic in all chicken from a certain supplier. It takes money and time to test for arsenic, so samples are often small. Suppose \(n=6\) chickens from one supplier are tested, and the levels of arsenic (in ppb) are: \(\begin{array}{llllll}68, & 75, & 81, & 93, & 95, & 134\end{array}\) (a) What is the sample mean for the data? (b) Translate the original sample data by the appropriate amount to create a new dataset in which the null hypothesis is true. How do the sample size and standard deviation of this new dataset compare to the sample size and standard deviation of the original dataset? (c) Write the six new data values from part (b) on six cards. Sample from these cards with replacement to generate one randomization sample. (Select a card at random, record the value, put it back, select another at random, until you have a sample of size \(6,\) to match the original sample size.) List the values in the sample and give the sample mean. (d) Generate 9 more simulated samples, for a total of 10 samples for a randomization distribution. Give the sample mean in each case and create a small dotplot. Use an arrow to locate the original sample mean on your dotplot.

The Ignorance Surveys were conducted in 2013 using random sampling methods in four different countries under the leadership of Hans Rosling, a Swedish statistician and international health advocate. The survey questions were designed to assess the ignorance of the public to global population trends. The survey was not just designed to measure ignorance (no information), but if preconceived notions can lead to more wrong answers than would be expected by random guessing. One question asked, "In the last 20 years the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has \(\ldots, "\) and three choices were provided: 1) "almost doubled" 2) "remained more or less the same," and 3) "almost halved." Of 1005 US respondents, just \(5 \%\) gave the correct answer: "almost halved." 34 We would like to test if the percent of correct choices is significantly different than what would be expected if the participants were just randomly guessing between the three choices. (a) What are the null and alternative hypotheses? (b) Using StatKey or other technology, construct a randomization distribution and compute the p-value. (c) State the conclusion in context.

Match the four \(\mathrm{p}\) -values with the appropriate conclusion: (a) The evidence against the null hypothesis is significant, but only at the \(10 \%\) level. (b) The evidence against the null and in favor of the alternative is very strong. (c) There is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis, even at the \(10 \%\) level. (d) The result is significant at a \(5 \%\) level but not at a \(1 \%\) level. I. 0.00008 II. 0.0571 III. 0.0368 IV. \(\quad 0.1753\)

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