The is answer is definitely D, because he computed the total population of 3,320 in the survey of his targeted people that he specified which was grade school and high school. In order for his computation to work for his market analysis he used the radius of 5m and the 75% he wanted to achieve.
Answer:
7.94
Step-by-step explanation:
Answer:
No, because the 95% confidence interval contains the hypothesized value of zero.
Step-by-step explanation:
Hello!
You have the information regarding two calcium supplements.
X₁: Calcium content of supplement 1
n₁= 12
X[bar]₁= 1000mg
S₁= 23 mg
X₂: Calcium content of supplement 2
n₂= 15
X[bar]₂= 1016mg
S₂= 24mg
It is known that X₁~N(μ₁; σ²₁), X₂~N(μ₂;δ²₂) and σ²₁=δ²₂=?
The claim is that both supplements have the same average calcium content:
H₀: μ₁ - μ₂ = 0
H₁: μ₁ - μ₂ ≠ 0
α: 0.05
The confidence level and significance level are to be complementary, so if 1 - α: 0.95 then α:0.05
since these are two independent samples from normal populations and the population variances are equal, you have to use a pooled variance t-test to construct the interval:
[(X[bar]₁-X[bar]₂) ± * ]
[(1000-1016)±2.060*23.57*]
[-34.80;2.80] mg
The 95% CI contains the value under the null hypothesis: "zero", so the decision is to not reject the null hypothesis. Then using a 5% significance level you can conclude that there is no difference between the average calcium content of supplements 1 and 2.
I hope it helps!
-0.7 im guessing
it might not be right but i tried because
Answer:
Step-by-step explanation:
1 are = 100 m²
Assuming the ten squares are congruent, the area of each square is 160/10 = 16 are
16 are × 100 m²/are = 1600 m²
each side is √1600 = 40 m