Did I get this right? If not could someone explain this to me?
2 answers:
You might be interested in
Answer:
There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given the following in the question:
Sample size, n = 1432
p = 23% = 0.23
Alpha, α = 0.05
Number of theft complaints , x = 321
First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis
This is a one-tailed test.
Formula:
Putting the values, we get,
Now, we calculate the p-value from the table.
P-value = 0.298
Since the p-value is greater than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Thus, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Answer:
(a) 4 seconds
Step-by-step explanation:
The given point (4, 0) on the parabola tells you the answer to the question: the coin was in the air 4 seconds before its height is 0. It is no longer in the air at that point.
__
<em>Additional comment</em>
In order to match the rest of the problem statement, the first given x-intercept must be (-2, 0).
Answer:
THE ANSWER IS 30
Step-by-step explanation:
We can solve this problem by multiplication expressions. See below.
1/6 ÷5 30