The first raise was a 25% increase, while the second raise was a 32% increase so there was a 7% increase from the first raise to the second one.
Since it is observed that I z I = 3.464 > 1.96 it is concluded that the null hypothesis is rejected.
Therefore we reject John's claim.
Here:
we can use 1 sample proportion test to check the claim of John
H₀ : p₀ = 0.4
H₁ : p₀ ≠ 0.4
Test statistic is
z = p - p₀/√p₀(1-p₀)n
Let X be the random variable denoting the number of heads.
Now p = X/n
= 8/50
= 0.16
p₀ = 0.4
1-p₀ = 1-0.4
= 0.6
z = -3.464
since it is observed that I z I = 3.464 > 1.96 it is concluded that the null hypothesis is rejected.
Therefore we reject John's claim.
Learn more about Null hypothesis here:
brainly.com/question/15980493
#SPJ4
Answer:
- A'(-3, 12)
- B'(9, 6)
- C'(-6, -6)
Step-by-step explanation:
Dilation about the origin multiplies each coordinate value by the dilation factor.
For dilation factor k, the new coordinates are ...
(x, y) ⇒ (kx, ky)
Your dilation factor is 3, so the transformation is ...
(x, y) ⇒ (3x, 3y)
A(-1, 4) ⇒ A'(-3, 12)
B(3, 2) ⇒ B'(9, 6)
C(-2, -2) ⇒ C'(-6, -6)
