Answer:
no it cant because 85/51 is at its simplest form ( i think this is right but sorry if im wrong)
Answer:
nsjsndjjenshshsn
Step-by-step explanation:
nsksnsjdjdjjenej
Answer:
B)
No, we can only say there is 27% chance of seeing the observed effectiveness from natural sampling variation. There is no evidence the new formula is more effective but we cannot conclude equal effectiveness.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hello!
The company compared the old antiacid formula against the new one. The claim is that the new formula is more effective.
The hypotheses are
H₀: μ₁ ≤ μ₂
H₁: μ₁ > μ₂
Where the subfix 1 represents the new formula and the subfix 2 represents the old formula.
The statistical analysis threw a p-value of 0.27.
Remember if the p-value ≥ α, n the decision is to not reject the null hypothesis.
If p-value < α, the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.
Let's say α: 0.1 ⇒ you'd decide to not reject the null hypothesis.
Then there would not be enough evidence to say the new formula is better than the old one (μ₁ > μ₂) instead you'd conclude that the new formula is at most as effective as the old one (μ₁ ≤ μ₂). To know if it is equally effective as the old one or less effective a new test should be made.
In simple words, the p-value is the probability of obtaining the value of the statistic under the null hypothesis. In this case, there is a 27% of possibility of observing the effectiveness of the new antiacid formula from a sampling error than because the new antiacid formula is, in fact, effective.
I hope it helps!
Answer: No, it does not appear to be normal.
A normal distribution has very specific characteristics:
- it is bell-shaped: it starts at a low value, then it increases to a maximum value, then it decreases to a low value again;
- it is symmetric;
- it is single-peaked.
The data table is not complete, but it is enough to give an answer.
Let's see how the frequencies change: we have 2, 0, 4, 12,...
The frequencies start from a low value, but at first, they decrease to a lower value right before increasing to a maximum value.
We don't know how they change after the maximum value, but from the first part of the curve, we can see that it is not bell-shaped, because it decreases before increasing. Probably, it won't be symmetric either.
Hence, we can say that using a strict interpretation of the relevant criteria the frequency distribution does not appear to be normal.
20% of 70 is 14.
Hope this helps!! :)
