Answer: OH SO LIKE CHESTER WAS A REALLY BAD PERSON.
:P
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: b) The probability that an item produced by this process is defective is likely to be close to 0.15, but not exactly equal to 0.15.
Step-by-step explanation:
Given that:
Number of samples = 100
Number of defective samples = 15
Proportion =number defective samples / total samples
P = 15 / 100 = 0.15
Hence, the probability that an item produces is defective is 0.15.
However, due to sampling Variations, the probability will be corrected for these variations. Hence, probability that an item produced by this process is defective is likely to be close to 0.15, but not exactly equal to 0.15.
Answer:
C
Step-by-step explanation:
The answer is x^4-6x^3+12x^2-28/x^2