In Exercises 5–20, assume that the two samples are independent simple random samples selected from normally distributed populations, and do not assume that the population standard deviations are equal. (Note: Answers in Appendix D include technology answers based on Formula 9-1 along with “Table” answers based on Table A-3 with df equal to the smaller of\({n_1} - 1\)and\({n_2} - 1\).) Is Old Faithful Not Quite So Faithful? Listed below are time intervals (min) between eruptions of the Old Faithful geyser. The “recent” times are within the past few years, and the “past” times are from 1995. Does it appear that the mean time interval has changed? Is the conclusion affected by whether the significance level is 0.05 or 0.01?

Recent

78

91

89

79

57

100

62

87

70

88

82

83

56

81

74

102

61

Past

89

88

97

98

64

85

85

96

87

95

90

95

Short Answer

Expert verified

There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean time interval between eruptions has changed at a 0.05 level of significance.

There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean time interval between eruptions has changed at a 0.01 level of significance.

The conclusion of the claim is affected by the change in the significance level.

Step by step solution

01

Given information

The past and recent time intervals (min) between eruptions of the Old Faithful geyser are listed in the table.

02

Formulation of the hypotheses

Null hypothesis:The past mean time interval between eruptions is equalto the recent mean time interval between eruptions.

\({H_0}\):\({\mu _1} = {\mu _2}\)

Alternative hypothesis:The past mean time interval between eruptions is not equal to the recent mean time interval between eruptions.

\({H_1}\):\({\mu _1} \ne {\mu _2}\)

03

Calculation of the sample means

The recent mean time interval between eruptions is equal to the following:

\(\begin{array}{c}{{\bar x}_1} = \frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{{n_1}} {{x_i}} }}{{{n_1}}}\\ = \frac{{78 + 91 + .... + 61}}{{17}}\\ = 78.82\end{array}\)

Therefore, the recent mean time interval between eruptions equals78.82 minutes.

The past mean time interval between eruptions equalsthe following:

\(\begin{array}{c}{{\bar x}_2} = \frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{{n_2}} {{x_i}} }}{{{n_2}}}\\ = \frac{{89 + 88 + ... + 95}}{{12}}\\ = 89.08\end{array}\)

Therefore, the past mean time interval between eruptions equals89.08 minutes.

04

Calculation of the sample standard deviations

The standard deviation of the recent time interval between eruptions is computed below:

\(\begin{array}{c}{s_1} = \sqrt {\frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{{n_1}} {{{({x_i} - {{\bar x}_1})}^2}} }}{{{n_1} - 1}}} \\ = \sqrt {\frac{{{{\left( {78 - 78.82} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {91 - 78.82} \right)}^2} + .... + {{\left( {61 - 78.82} \right)}^2}}}{{17 - 1}}} \\ = 13.97\end{array}\)

Therefore, the standard deviation of the recent time interval between eruptions equals 13.97 minutes.

The standard deviation for the past time interval between eruptions is equal to:

\(\begin{array}{c}{s_2} = \sqrt {\frac{{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{{n_2}} {{{({x_i} - {{\bar x}_2})}^2}} }}{{{n_2} - 1}}} \\ = \sqrt {\frac{{{{\left( {89 - 89.08} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {88 - 89.08} \right)}^2} + .... + {{\left( {95 - 89.08} \right)}^2}}}{{12 - 1}}} \\ = 9.19\end{array}\)

Therefore, the standard deviation of the past time interval between eruptions is equal to 9.19 minutes.

05

Calculation of the test statistic

Under the null hypothesis,\({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 0\).

The test statistic is computed below:

\(\begin{array}{c}t = \frac{{\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) - \left( {{\mu _1} - {\mu _2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} }}\\ = \frac{{\left( {78.82 - 89.08} \right) - \left( 0 \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{{{\left( {13.97} \right)}^2}}}{{17}} + \frac{{{{\left( {9.19} \right)}^2}}}{{12}}} }}\\ = - 2.385\end{array}\)

Thus, the value of the test statistic is -2.385.

06

Computation of critical value

Degrees of freedom: The smaller of the two values,\(\left( {{n_1} - 1} \right)\)and\(\left( {{n_2} - 1} \right)\)is considered as the degreesof freedom.

\(\begin{array}{c}\left( {{n_1} - 1} \right) = \left( {17 - 1} \right)\\ = 16\end{array}\)

\(\begin{array}{c}\left( {{n_2} - 1} \right) = \left( {12 - 1} \right)\\ = 11\end{array}\)

The value of the degrees of freedom is the minimum of (16,11) equal to 11.

Now see the t-distribution table for a two-tailed test with a 0.05 level of significance and 11 degrees of freedom.

The critical values are -2.201 and 2.201. The corresponding p-value is equal to 0.0362.

The value of the test statistic does not lie between the values -2.201 and 2.201 and the p-value is less than 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected at a 0.05 significance level.

07

Conclusion of the test

There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean time interval between eruptions has changed at a 0.05 level of significance.

08

Changing the level of significance

Let the level of significance be equal to 0.01.

Referring to the t-distribution table, the critical values of t at\(\alpha = 0.01\) with 11 degrees of freedom for a two-tailed test are -3.1058 and 3.1058.

The p-value remains the same and is equal to 0.0362.

The test statistic value equal to -2.385 lies between the two critical values, and the p-value is greater than 0.01.

There is insufficient evidence to support the claim that the mean time interval between eruptions has changed at a 0.01 level of significance.

Thus, the conclusion of the claim changes with the change in the significance level.

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

Hypothesis Tests and Confidence Intervals for Hemoglobin

a. Exercise 2 includes a confidence interval. If you use the P-value method or the critical value method from Part 1 of this section to test the claim that women and men have the same mean hemoglobin levels, will the hypothesis tests and the confidence interval result in the same conclusion?

b. In general, if you conduct a hypothesis test using the methods of Part 1 of this section, will the P-value method, the critical value method, and the confidence interval method result in the same conclusion?

c. Assume that you want to use a 0.01 significance level to test the claim that the mean haemoglobin level in women is lessthan the mean hemoglobin level in men. What confidence level should be used if you want to test that claim using a confidence interval?

Determining Sample Size The sample size needed to estimate the difference between two population proportions to within a margin of error E with a confidence level of 1 - a can be found by using the following expression:

E=zα2p1q1n1+p2q2n2

Replace n1andn2 by n in the preceding formula (assuming that both samples have the same size) and replace each of role="math" localid="1649424190272" p1,q1,p2andq2by 0.5 (because their values are not known). Solving for n results in this expression:

n=zα222E2

Use this expression to find the size of each sample if you want to estimate the difference between the proportions of men and women who own smartphones. Assume that you want 95% confidence that your error is no more than 0.03.

Testing Claims About Proportions. In Exercises 7–22, test the given claim. Identify the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, test statistic, P-value or critical value(s), then state the conclusion about the null hypothesis, as well as the final conclusion that addresses the original claim.

Bednets to Reduce Malaria In a randomized controlled trial in Kenya, insecticide-treated bednets were tested as a way to reduce malaria. Among 343 infants using bednets, 15 developed malaria. Among 294 infants not using bednets, 27 developed malaria (based on data from “Sustainability of Reductions in Malaria Transmission and Infant Mortality in Western Kenya with Use of Insecticide-Treated Bednets,” by Lindblade et al., Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 291, No. 21). We want to use a 0.01 significance level to test the claim that the incidence of malaria is lower for infants using bednets.

a. Test the claim using a hypothesis test.

b. Test the claim by constructing an appropriate confidence interval.

c. Based on the results, do the bednets appear to be effective?

In Exercises 5–20, assume that the two samples are independent simple random samples selected from normally distributed populations, and do not assume that the population standard deviations are equal. (Note: Answers in Appendix D include technology answers based on Formula 9-1 along with “Table” answers based on Table A-3 with df equal to the smaller of\({n_1} - 1\)and\({n_2} - 1\).)

Seat Belts A study of seat belt use involved children who were hospitalized after motor vehicle crashes. For a group of 123 children who were wearing seat belts, the number of days in intensive care units (ICU) has a mean of 0.83 and a standard deviation of 1.77. For a group of 290 children who were not wearing seat belts, the number of days spent in ICUs has a mean of 1.39 and a standard deviation of 3.06 (based on data from “Morbidity Among Pediatric Motor Vehicle Crash Victims: The Effectiveness of Seat Belts,” by Osberg and Di Scala, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 82, No. 3).

a. Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that children wearing seat belts have a lower mean length of time in an ICU than the mean for children not wearing seat belts.

b. Construct a confidence interval appropriate for the hypothesis test in part (a).

c. What important conclusion do the results suggest?

Testing Claims About Proportions. In Exercises 7–22, test the given claim. Identify the null hypothesis, alternative hypothesis, test statistic, P-value or critical value(s), then state the conclusion about the null hypothesis, as well as the final conclusion that addresses the original claim.

Is Echinacea Effective for Colds? Rhinoviruses typically cause common colds. In a test of the effectiveness of Echinacea, 40 of the 45 subjects treated with Echinacea developed rhinovirus infections. In a placebo group, 88 of the 103 subjects developed rhinovirus infections (based on data from “An Evaluation of Echinacea Angustifolia in Experimental Rhinovirus Infections,” by Turner et al., New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 353, No. 4). We want to use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that Echinacea has an effect on rhinovirus infections.

a. Test the claim using a hypothesis test.

b. Test the claim by constructing an appropriate confidence interval.

c. Based on the results, does Echinacea appear to have any effect on the infection rate?

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