The answer is 5 and 2/5. Hopefully it is correct!
Answer:
35.35%
Step-by-step explanation:
If there were no deductibles, the expected claim payment would be:
If the collision insurance claim is under $2,000, then the insurer would not pay anything, but if X > $2,000, then the insurer would pay X - $2,000. The new expected value is:
The percentage reduction on the claim payment is:
There was a 35.35% reduction.
Answer:
b. Hannah is likely to be incorrect because 9 is not contained in the interval.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hello!
Hannah estimated per CI the difference between the average time that people spend outside in southern states and the average time people spend outside in northern states.
The CI is a method of estimation of population parameters that propose a range of possible values for them. The confidence level you use to construct the interval can be interpreted as, if you were to calculate 100 confidence interval, you'd expect that 99 of them will contain the true value of the parameter of interest.
In this example, the 99%CI resulted [0.4;8.0]hs
Meaning that with a 99% confidence level you'd expect the value of the difference between the average time people from southern states spend outside than the average time people from northern states spend outside is included in the interval [0.4;8.0]hs.
Now, she claims that people living in southern states spend 9 more hours outside than people living in northern states, symbolized μ₁ - μ₂ > 9
Keep in mind that if you were to test her claim, the resulting hypothesis test would be one-tailed
H₀: μ₁ - μ₂ ≤ 9
H₁: μ₁ - μ₂ > 9
And that the calculated Ci is tow-tailed, so it is not valid to use it to decide over the hypotheses pair. This said, considering that the calculated interval doesn't contain 9, it is most likely that Hannah's claim is incorrect.
I hope this helps!
