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: -66d-21 I think.
Step-by-step explanation:
9(-8d-7<u>)</u>+6(d+7)
-72d-63+6d+42 Distributive Property
-72d+6d+-63+42 Combine Like Terms
-66d-21 Answer
Answer:
wrong the answer is 63.1
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
Cost of the 3 shirts before tax = 2*49.96 + 1/2 * 49.96
= $124.90
After adding 7.1% tax total cost = 124.90 * 1.071 = $133.77
So the cost od each shirt = 133.77 / 3 = $44.59 (answer)