Question

Maria has two routes, E and W, she can take when commuting to work. Both routes go through a railroad crossing, and sometimes she needs to stop at the crossing to allow trains to pass. She claims that the proportion of times she needs to stop when taking route E is different from the proportion of times she needs to stop when taking route W. She conducted the following hypothesis test at the significance level of α=0.10.
H0: pE=pW
Ha: pE≠pW
In the hypotheses, pE represents the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing when using route E, and pW represents the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing when using route W.

All conditions for inference were met, and the resulting p-value was 0.37. Which of the following is the correct decision for the test?


The p -value is less than alpha , and the null hypothesis is rejected. There is convincing evidence to support the claim that the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing is different for the different routes.

The p -value is greater than alpha , and the null hypothesis is not rejected. There is convincing evidence to support the claim that the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing is the same for the different routes.

The p -value is greater than alpha , and the null hypothesis is rejected. There is not convincing evidence to support the claim that the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing is different for the different routes.

The p -value is greater than alpha , and the null hypothesis is not rejected. There is not convincing evidence to support the claim that the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing is different for the different routes.

The p-value is greater than α, and the null hypothesis is rejected. There is convincing evidence to support the claim that the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing is different for the different routes.

Answer 1

Answer:

The p-value is greater than α , and the null hypothesis is not rejected. There is not convincing evidence to support the claim that the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing is different for the different routes.

Step-by-step explanation:

The claim is not supported. Since 0.37>0.10, the null hypothesis is not rejected. There is not convincing statistical evidence that the proportion of times she needs to stop at the crossing is different for the different routes.