This is your answer
21 18 15 12 9 6 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2 answers:
You might be interested in
Answer:
We conclude that there was no significant change in cigarette purchases after the new tax.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given that during the year before the tax was imposed, stores located in rest areas on the state thruway reported selling an average of µ = 410 packs per day with σ = 60.
For a sample of n = 9 days following the new tax, the researcher found an average of M = 386 packs per day for the same stores.
Let = <u><em>mean cigarette purchases after the new tax.</em></u>
SO, Null Hypothesis, :
= 410 packs/day {means that there was no significant change in cigarette purchases after the new tax}
Alternate Hypothesis, :
410 packs/day {means that there was a significant change in cigarette purchases after the new tax}
The test statistics that would be used here <u>One-sample z-test statistics</u> as we know about population standard deviation;
T.S. = ~ N(0,1)
where, M = sample mean selling of packs/day = 386 packs/day
σ = population standard deviation = 60
n = sample of days = 9
So, <u><em>the test statistics</em></u> =
= -1.20
The value of z test statistics is -1.20.
<u>Now, at 5% significance level the z table gives critical values of -1.645 and 1.645 for two-tailed test.</u>
Since our test statistic lies within the range of critical values of z, so we have insufficient evidence to reject our null hypothesis as it will not fall in the rejection region due to which <u><em>we fail to reject our null hypothesis</em></u>.
Therefore, we conclude that there was no significant change in cigarette purchases after the new tax.