According to Professor Zarkov's correlational data, there is a statistically significant relationship between the socioeconomic
1 answer:
Answer:
b. the results are unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Correct when we say significant means that the difference between the hypothetical correlation coefficient of 0 and the real correlation coefficient are large enough to conclude the significant result and not just by chance.
Step-by-step explanation:
When we want to analyze of two variables present significant correlation usually we use the following system of hypothesis:
Null hypothesis:
Alternative Hypothesis:
And when we conduct the test if we conclude that we have a significant relationship that means, we have enough evidence to conclude that the correlation coefficient is different from 0 at some significance level . Let's analyze one by one the possible options:
a. the finding has no mathematical validity.
False, we are conducting an hypothesis test, that procedure present validity always.
b. the results are unlikely to have occurred by chance.
Correct when we say significant means that the difference between the hypothetical correlation coefficient of 0 and the real correlation coefficient is large enough to conclude the significant result and is not just by chance.
c. there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two variables.
False, we can't analyze causal relationships with the correlation coefficient.
d. the finding can be used to generate new theories.
That's False we can't create new theories with this result, we just can conclude that the correlation coeffcient for the population is different from 0, but nothing else.
You might be interested in
Answer:
a) The 98% confidence interval would be given (0.182;0.218).
b) We are 98% confident that the true proportion of of England people who are deficient in Vitamin D is between 0.182 and 0.218.
c) If repeated samples were taken and the 98% confidence interval computed for each sample, 98% of the intervals would contain the population proportion.
d) Yes since the confidence interval not contains the value 0.25, we can refute the claim at 2% of significance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Data given and notation
n=2700 represent the random sample taken
X represent the people in England who are deficient in Vitamin D
estimated proportion of England people who are deficient in Vitamin D
represent the significance level
Confidence =0.98 or 98%
z would represent the statistic (variable of interest)
p= population proportion of England people who are deficient in Vitamin D
Part a
The confidence interval would be given by this formula
For the 98% confidence interval the value of and
, with that value we can find the quantile required for the interval in the normal standard distribution.
And replacing into the confidence interval formula we got:
And the 98% confidence interval would be given (0.182;0.218).
Part b
We are 98% confident that the true proportion of of England people who are deficient in Vitamin D is between 0.182 and 0.218.
Part c
If repeated samples were taken and the 98% confidence interval computed for each sample, 98% of the intervals would contain the population proportion.
Part d
Yes since the confidence interval not contains the value 0.25, we can refute the claim at 2% of significance.
Which expression is equivalent to the given expression?
15(12-x)
A.
hope this help
15(12-x)
A.
hope this help