9-30 a) α = 0.01, then a = z / 2 = 2.57 and b = - z / 2 = -2.

57
b) α = 0.05, then a = z / 2 = 1.96 and b = - z / 2 = -1.96

c) α = 0.1, then a = z / 2 = 1.65 and b = - z / 2 = -1.65

9-40 a) 1) The parameter of interest is the true mean water temperature, .

2) H0 :  = 100
3) H1 :  > 100
x
4) z0 
/ n
5) Reject H0 if z0 > z where  = 0.05 and z0.05 = 1.65
6) x  98 ,  = 2
98  100
z0   3.0
2/ 9
7) Because -3.0 < 1.65 fail to reject H0. The water temperature is not significantly greater than 100 at  = 0.05.
b) P-value = 1  (3.0)  1  0.00135  0.99865

 100  104 
c)    z 0.05  
 2/ 9 
= (1.65 + 6)
= (-4.35) 0

9-42 a) 1) The parameter of interest is the true mean melting point, .

2) H0 :  = 155
3) H1 :   155
x
4) z0 
/ n
5) Reject H0 if z0 < z /2 where  = 0.01 and z0.005 = 2.58 or z0 > z/2 where  = 0.01 and z0.005 = 2.58
6) x = 154.2,  = 1.5
154.2  155
z0   1.69
1.5 / 10
7) Because –1.69 > -2.58 fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim the
mean melting point differs from 155 F at  = 0.01.

b) P-value = 2*P(Z <- 1.69) =2* 0.045514 = 0.091028

  n    n 
   z0.005  
    z0.005   
c)
    
 (155  150) 10   (155  150) 10 
  2.58      2.58 
 


 1.5   1.5 

= (-7.96)- (-13.12) = 0 – 0 = 0

d)
z  /2  z   2
2
z 0.005  z 0.10 2  2 (2.58  1.29) 2 (1.5) 2
n    1.35,
2 (150  155) 2 (5) 2
n  2.

9-46 a) 1) The parameter of interest is the true mean hole diameter, .

 2) H0 :  = 1.50
3) H1 :   1.50
x
4) z0 
/ n
5) Reject H0 if z0 < z/2 where  = 0.01 and z0.005 = 2.58 or z0 > z/2 where z0.005 = 2.58
6) x  1.4975 ,  = 0.01
1.4975  1.50
z0   1.25
0.01 / 25
7) Because 2.58 < -1.25 < 2.58 fail to reject the null hypothesis. The true mean hole diameter is not significantly
different from 1.5 in. at  = 0.01.

b) P-value=2(1-  ( Z 0 ) )=2(1-  (1.25) )  0.21

c)
  n    n 
   z 0.005  
    z 0.005   
    
 (1.495  1.5) 25   (1.495  1.5) 25 
  2.58      2.58 
 


 0.01   0.01 

= (5.08) - (-0.08) = 1 – 0.46812 = 0.53188

power=1-=0.46812.

d) Set  = 1  0.90 = 0.10

( z / 2  z  ) 2  2 ( z 0.005  z 0.10 ) 2  2 (2.58  1.29) 2 (0.01) 2
n= =  = 59.908,
2 (1.495  1.50) 2 (0.005) 2
n  60.

e) For  = 0.01, z/2 = z0.005 = 2.58

     
x  z0.005      x  z0.005  
 n  n
 0.01   0.01 
1.4975  2.58     1.4975  2.58 
 25   25 
1.4923    1.5027
The confidence interval constructed contains the value 1.5. Therefore, there is not strong evidence that true mean hole
diameter differs from 1.5 in. using a 99% level of confidence. Because a two-sided 99% confidence interval is
equivalent to a two-sided hypothesis test at  = 0.01, the conclusions necessarily must be consistent.

9-72 a) α = 0.01, n = 20, from Table V we find 2 ,n1  36.19

b) α = 0.05, n = 12, from Table V we find 2 ,n1  19.68
c) α = 0.10, n = 15, from Table V we find 2 ,n1  21.06

9-96 Expected Frequency is found by using the Poisson distribution

e  x
P( X  x)  where   [0(24)  1(30)  2(31)  3(11)  4(4)] / 100  1.41
x!
Value 0 1 2 3 4
Observed Frequency 24 30 31 11 4
Expected Frequency 30.12 36.14 21.69 8.67 2.60
 Since value 4 has an expected frequency less than 3, combine this category with the previous category:

Value 0 1 2 3-4
Observed Frequency 24 30 31 15
Expected Frequency 30.12 36.14 21.69 11.67

The degrees of freedom are k  p  1 = 4  0  1 = 3

a) 1) The variable of interest is the form of the distribution for X.

2) H0: The form of the distribution is Poisson
3) H1: The form of the distribution is not Poisson
4) The test statistic is

 
2
k
Oi  Ei 2
0
i 1 Ei
5) Reject H0 if 2o  20.05,3  7.81 for  = 0.05

6)  02 
24  30.122  30  36.142  31  21.692  15  11.672  7.23
30.12 36.14 21.69 11.67
7) Because 7.23 < 7.81 fail to reject H0. We are unable to reject the null hypothesis that the distribution of X is Poisson.

b) The P-value is between 0.05 and 0.1 using Table IV. From Minitab the P-value = 0.0649.

9-104 1. The variable of interest is calls by surgical-medical patients.

2. H0: Calls by surgical-medical patients are independent of Medicare status.
3. H1: Calls by surgical-medical patients are not independent of Medicare status.
4. The test statistic is:
r c O  Eij 
2

  
2 ij
0
i 1 j 1 Eij
5. The critical value is  .01,1 6.637 for  = 0.01
2

6. The calculated test statistic is  0  0.033

2

7. Because  0   02.01,1
2
fail to reject H0. The evidence is not sufficient to claim that surgical-medical patients and
Medicare status are dependent. P-value = 0.85

10-15 a) 1) The parameter of interest is the difference in mean rod diameter, 1   2

2) H0 : 1   2  0 or 1   2
3) H1 : 1   2  0 or 1   2
4) The test statistic is

5) Reject the null hypothesis if t0 < where = 2.042 or t0 > t / 2, n1  n2  2 where t 0.025,30 =
2.042 for  = 0.05
6) x1  8.73 x2  8.68
14(0.35)  16(0.40)
s12  0.35 s22  0.40   0.614
30
n1 = 15 n2 = 17
(8.73  8.68)
t0   0.230
1 1
0.614 
15 17
 7) Conclusion: Because 2.042 < 0.230 < 2.042, fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence to
conclude that the two machines produce different mean diameters at  = 0.05.

P-value = 2P  t  0.230  2(0.40), P-value > 0.80

b) 95% confidence interval: t0.025,30 = 2.042

 x1  x2   t / 2,n  n  1   2   x1  x2   t  / 2, n1  n 2  2 (sp )
1 1 1 1
1 2 2
(sp )  
n1 n2 n1 n2
1 1 1 1
(8.73  8.68)  2.042(0.614)   1   2   8.73  8.68  2.042(0.643) 
15 17 15 17
 0.394  1   2  0.494
Because zero is contained in this interval, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the two machines produce rods
with different mean diameters.

10-20 a) 1) The parameter of interest is the difference in mean impact strength, 1   2 , with 0 = 0
2) H0 : 1   2  0 or 1   2
3) H1 : 1   2  0 or 1   2
4) The test statistic is
( x1  x 2 )   0
t0 
s12 s 22

n1 n 2
5) Reject the null hypothesis if t0 < t ,  where t 0.05, 23 = 1.714 for  = 0.05 since
2
 s12 s 22 
  
  n1 n2   23.72
2
 s12   s 22 
   
 n1    n2 
n1  1 n2  1
  23
(truncated)

6) x1  290 x2  321
s1  12 s2  22
n1 = 10 n2 = 16
(290  321)
t0   4.64
(12) 2 (22) 2

10 16
7) Conclusion: Because 4.64 < 1.714 reject the null hypothesis and conclude that supplier 2 provides gears with
higher mean impact strength at the 0.05 level of significance.

P-value = P(t < 4.64): P-value < 0.0005

b) 1) The parameter of interest is the difference in mean impact strength,  2  1

2) H0 :  2  1  25
3) H1 :  2  1  25 or  2  1  25
4) The test statistic is
 ( x2  x1)  
t0 
s12 s22

n1 n2
5) Reject the null hypothesis if t0 > t  ,  = 1.714 for  = 0.05 where
2
 s12 s 22 
  
   n1 n 2   23.72
2
 s12   s 22 
   
 n1    n 2 
n1  1 n 2  1
  23
6) x1  290 x2  321  0 =25 s1  12 s2  22 n1 = 10 n2 = 16
(321  290)  25
t0   0.898
(12) 2 (22) 2

10 16
7) Conclusion: Because 0.898 < 1.714, fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that t
the mean impact strength from supplier 2 is at least 25 ft-lb higher that supplier 1 using  = 0.05.

c) Using the information provided in part (a), and t0.025,25 = 2.069, a 95% confidence interval on the difference  2  1
is
s12 s 22 s2 s2
( x2  x1 )  t 0.025, 25    2  1  ( x2  x1 )  t 0.025, 25 1  2
n1 n2 n1 n2
31  2.069(6.682)   2  1  31  2.069(6.682)
17.175   2  1  44.825

Because zero is not contained in the confidence interval, we conclude that supplier 2 provides gears with a higher mean
impact strength than supplier 1 with 95% confidence.