Answer:
well i thought i could help....
Step-by-step explanation:
but that looks rllly complicated
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%.
The answer is 9. because... (8+9) + 32= 49
The first plan : y = 27 + 0.12x
Second plan : y = 0.16x
27 + 0.12x= 0.16x
27 = 0.04x
x = 67.5 minutes