Answer:
5
Step-by-step explanation:
Since we have not instructed to follow any kind of rule dividing, we can write in any form. Let's calculate it using fraction
We can multiply both the nominator and denominator with 100
The answer is 5.
We can also solve it as a division of fractions:
Answer:
We need to conduct a hypothesis in order to check if the technique performs differently than the traditional method, the system of hypothesis would be:
Null hypothesis:
Alternative hypothesis:
If we compare the p value and the significance level given we see that
so we can conclude that we have enough evidence to FAIL reject the null hypothesis, so we can't conclude that the technique performs differently than the traditional method at 10% of signficance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Data given and notation
represent the sample mean
represent the sample standard deviation
sample size
represent the value that we want to test
represent the significance level for the hypothesis test.
t would represent the statistic (variable of interest)
represent the p value for the test (variable of interest)
State the null and alternative hypotheses.
We need to conduct a hypothesis in order to check if the technique performs differently than the traditional method, the system of hypothesis would be:
Null hypothesis:
Alternative hypothesis:
If we analyze the size for the sample is < 30 and we don't know the population deviation so is better apply a t test to compare the actual mean to the reference value, and the statistic is given by:
(1)
t-test: "Is used to compare group means. Is one of the most common tests and is used to determine if the mean is (higher, less or not equal) to an specified value".
Calculate the statistic
We can replace in formula (1) the info given like this:
P-value
The first step is calculate the degrees of freedom, on this case:
Since is a two sided test the p value would be:
Conclusion
If we compare the p value and the significance level given we see that
so we can conclude that we have enough evidence to FAIL reject the null hypothesis, so we can't conclude that the technique performs differently than the traditional method at 10% of signficance.