Solve for x. Use the completing the squares

The bad debt ratio for a financial institution is defined to be the dollar values of loans defaulted divided by the total dollar

Nimfa-mama [501]

Answer:

(a) NULL HYPOTHESIS, $H_0$ : $\mu \leq$ 3.5%

ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS, $H_1$ : $\mu$ > 3.5%

(b) We conclude that the the mean bad debt ratio for Ohio banks is higher than the mean for all federally insured banks.

Step-by-step explanation:

We are given that a random sample of seven Ohio banks is selected.The bad debt ratios for these banks are 7, 4, 6, 7, 5, 4, and 9%.The mean bad debt ratio for all federally insured banks is 3.5%.

We have to test the claim of Federal banking officials that the mean bad debt ratio for Ohio banks is higher than the mean for all federally insured banks.

(a) Let, NULL HYPOTHESIS, $H_0$ : $\mu \leq$ 3.5% {means that the the mean bad debt ratio for Ohio banks is less than or equal to the mean for all federally insured banks}

ALTERNATE HYPOTHESIS, $H_1$ : $\mu$ > 3.5% {means that the the mean bad debt ratio for Ohio banks is higher than the mean for all federally insured banks}

The test statistics that will be used here is One-sample t-test;

T.S. = $\frac{\bar X - \mu}{\frac{s}{\sqrt{n} } }$ ~ $t_n_-_1$

where, $\bar X$ = sample mean debt ratio of Ohio banks = 6%

s = sample standard deviation = $\sqrt{\frac{\sum (X-\bar X)^{2} }{n-1} }$ = 1.83%

n = sample of banks = 7

So, test statistics = $\frac{6-3.5}{\frac{1.83}{\sqrt{7} } }$ ~ $t_6$

= 3.614

(b) Now, at 1% significance level t table gives critical value of 3.143. Since our test statistics is more than the critical value of t so we have sufficient evidence to reject null hypothesis as it will fall in the rejection region.

Therefore, we conclude that the the mean bad debt ratio for Ohio banks is higher than the mean for all federally insured banks.

Hence, Federal banking officials claim was correct.

7 0

3 years ago

Compare: 1.6 x 10^-5 and 1.62 x 104^-4 A) > B) < C) = D) none of the above

Andru [333]

The correct answer is d

3 0

3 years ago

Pls help need answer asap pls provide explanation if you can if not than it is fine thx

leva [86]

Answer:

Correct options are B, C and E.

Step-by-step explanation:

From the graph, we see that,

A. The graph is a decreasing as the number of years are increasing.

So, the function is not representing an exponential growth.

B. From the graph, we see that,

At 0 years, the function value is at 500,000.

Thus, there was $500,000 initially when the owner started making withdrawals

C. From the graph, we see that,

At 10 years, the function value is at 300,000.

Thus, after 10 years, there is exactly $300,000 left in the account.

D. We have that, 'The amount that the owner withdraws is given by the slope of the points'.

So, the slope at different points is given by,

$\frac{300,000-500,000}{10-0}=\frac{-200,000}{10}=-200,00$

$\frac{100,000-200,000}{30-10}=\frac{-100,000}{10}=-100,00$

So, the amount withdrew each year is not same.

E. As, the y-axis represents the amount of money remaining when the owner started withdrawing.

The y-intercept is the point when the graph crosses y-axis i.e. when x = 0.

So, the y-intercept represents the amount of money withdrew at 0 years.

Thus, y-intercept represents the amount of money in the account when the owner started making withdrawals.

Hence, the correct options are B, C and E.

5 0

3 years ago

Rhett was solving the algebraic proof below. What reason is missing from his

klemol [59]

Answer:

Adding the variables

Step-by-step explanation:

3 0

3 years ago

Evaluate -14 - 6 - 12 =??

ddd [48]

Answer: -32

Step-by-step explanation: -14 - 6 - 12 = -32

3 0

3 years ago