Will mark brainliest
2 answers:
You might be interested in
Answer:
1. B. H0: μ1−μ2=0, HA: μ1−μ2≠0
2. z=1.2114
3. P-value=0.2257
4. Do not reject H0
Step-by-step explanation:
We have to perfomr an hypothesis test to see if there is strong evidence that there is a significant difference between the two population means.
The null and alternative hypothesis are:
Being μ1 the mean average gain for younger mothers and μ2 the mean average gain for mature mothers.
(NOTE: we are comparing means, not proportions, as it is the random variable is the weight gain).
As we are claiming "strong evidence", the level of significance will be 0.01.
For younger mothers, the sample size is n1=840, the sample mean is 30.7 and the sample standard deviation is s1=14.91.
For mature mothers, the sample size is n2=132, the sample mean is 29.15 and the sample standard deviation is s2=13.46.
The difference between means is
The standard error of the difference between means is
Then, the statistic can be calculated as:
The P-value for this z-statistic in a two tailed test is:
As the P-value is greater than the significance level, the null hypothesis failed to be rejected.
There is no enough evidence to claim that the real average weight gain differs from mature and youger mothers.
Answer:
The plot shows a positive linear association. Price is the explanatory variable.
*See attachment for the scatterplot of the data
Step-by-step explanation:
The rate of deforestation is dependent on the price of coffee. Therefore, the explanatory variable is the price of coffee, which affects rate of deforestation.
The response variable is the rate of deforestation. The rate of deforestation is influenced by the price of coffee.
When plotting a scatter plot, the values for the explanatory variable are plotted on the x-axis, while the response variables are plotted on the y-axis.
The data given below is what we would use in plotting the scatterplot shown in the attachment:
Explanatory variable, X, (Price, cents per pound) => Response variable, Y, (deforestation, %)
25 => 0.31
49 = > 1.69
60 => 1.66
55 => 1.7
68 => 3.31
The scatterplot graphed as shown in the attachment shows a positive linear relationship between price of coffee and rate of deforestation. As price increases, rate of deforestation also increases.
