Based on the percentage of readers who own a particular make of the car and the random sample, we can infer that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.02 level to support the executive claim.
<h3>What is the evidence to support the executive's claim?</h3>
The hypothesis is:
Null hypothesis : P = 0.55
Alternate hypothesis : P ≠ 0.55
We then need to find the test statistic:
= (Probability found by marketing executive - Probability from publisher) / √( (Probability from publisher x (1 - Probability from publisher))/ number of people sampled
= (0.46 - 0.55) / √(( 0.55 x ( 1 - 0.55)) / 200
= -2.56
Using this z value as the test statistic, perform a two-tailed test to show:
= P( Z < -2.56) + P(Z > 2.56)
= 0.0052 + 0.0052
= 0.0104
The p-value is 0.0104 which is less than the significance level of 0.02. This means that we reject the null hypothesis.
The Marketing executive was correct.
Find out more on the null and alternate hypothesis at brainly.com/question/25263462
#SPJ1
Answer:
No, Watching TV has an opportunity cost
Explanation:
Opportunity costs represent the forfeited benefits for preferring a certain option over others. It is the foregone benefits from the next best alternative.
Watching TV for two hours has an opportunity cost. By watching TV, a person has sacrificed doing other things. The two hours could have been used in other ways like working, studying, swimming, or playing. By watching TV, the person missed benefits from the other activities. The other activity that would have resulted in more benefits other than watching TV is the opportunity cost.
Answer: Big Tech companies thrive on consumer data.
Explanation: So you can limit there power by imposing
Answer:
c. $900
Explanation:
The computation of the earnings before taxes (EBT) is shown below:
= Sales - operating costs other than depreciation - depreciation expense - outstanding bonds × interest rate
= $10,000 - $7,250 - $1,250 - $8,000 × 7.5%
= $10,000 - $7,250 - $1,250 - $600
= $900
We ignored the state income tax rate of 25% and the rest of the items would be taken for the computation part
Yes, that seems like a prudent decision. Maybe provide more information?