Which statement correctly compares the function shown on this graph with
1 answer:
You might be interested in
Answer:
c. 10/3 hours
Step-by-step explanation:
Let's make a table.
Names:| Times completed in:| Field Space Covered:| Rate the field was . covered:
Aaron | 5 hours | 1 field | 1/5 field space/hour
Rachel | x hours | 1 field | 1/x field space/hour
Together| 2 hours | 1 field | 1/2 field space/hour
The 1 field represents that they covered the whole field.
The rate is found by dividing field space covered by amount of hours it took for them to cover it.
There rates individually should add up to the "together" rate.
Clear fractions by multiplying both sides by on both sides:
Subtract 2x on both sides:
Divide both sides by 3:
x represented the amount of time it took Rachel alone to cover 1 field.
10/3 hours is the answer.
Answer:
1) The normal distribution should be used for the sample mean because the population distribution is known to be normal (answer b).
2) C. H0: mu = 519, H_1: mu not equal to 519, reject if z> 1.96 or z< -1.96.
3) Yes. There is enough evidence to support the claim that the true mean is not 519 ml.
Step-by-step explanation:
1) When the population follows a normal distribution, it is correct to assume a normal distribution for the sample mean.
2) As it is a two-tailed decision rule, we are interested in detecting a significant difference below and above the mean. This is why we use the unequal sign in the alternative hypothesis.
The null hypothesis state that there is not significant difference from 519.
The critical value for a significance level of 5% is z=1.96.
3) The claim is that the true mean is not 519 ml.
Then, the null and alternative hypothesis are:
The significance level is 0.05.
The sample has a size n=16.
The sample mean is M=522.
The standard deviation of the population is known and has a value of σ=6.
We can calculate the standard error as:
Then, we can calculate the z-statistic as:
This test is a two-tailed test, so the P-value for this test is calculated as:
As the P-value (0.046) is smaller than the significance level (0.05), the effect is significant.
The null hypothesis is rejected.
There is enough evidence to support the claim that the true mean is not 519 ml.