Incomplete question. The full question read;
A certain process for manufacturing integrated circuits has been in use for a period of time, and it is known that 12% of the circuits it produces are defective. A new process that is supposed to reduce the proportion of defectives is being tested. In a simple random sample of 100 circuits produced by the new process, 12 were defective.
a. One of the engineers suggests that the test proves that the new process is no better than the old process since the proportion of defectives in the sample is the same. Is this conclusion justified? Explain.
b. Assume that there had been only 11 defective circuits in the sample of 100. Would this have proven that the new process is better? Explain.
c. Which outcome represents stronger evidence that the new process is better: finding 11 defective circuits in the sample, or finding 2 defective circuits in the sample?
Answer:
<u>1. No.</u>
<u>2. No.</u>
<u>3. finding 2 defective circuits in the sample.</u>
Step-by-step explanation:
1. This does not prove that the new process is not better than the previous since we can this was just a random sample of 100 circuits that led to that discovery, not the entire circuits produced.
2. Even there had been only 11 defective circuits in the sample of 100, it still does not necessarily guarantee or prove the new process is better, since the actual percentage of defectives may be greater in another larger sample over 100.
3. By having just two defective circuits in the sample it would more clearly show that the new process is better.
