9.13 n = 10, x = 2,237.5, s = 109.36, df = 9,  = .05 critical t.05,9 = 1.

833
Ho: µ = 2,260
Ha: µ > 2,260
x   2,237.5  2,260
t =  = -0.65
s 109.36
n 10
Observed t = -0.65 < t.05,10 = 1.812, fail to reject the null hypothesis
9.25 Ho: p = .48,Ha: p  .48, n = 400, x = 174,  = .01 z.005 = +2.575
x 174 pˆ  p .435  .48
pˆ   = .435, z =  = -1.80
n 400 pq (.48)(.52)
n 400

decision is fail to reject the null hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to
declare that the proportion is any different than .48.
10.13 Ho: µ1 - µ2 = 0, = .05, Ha: µ1 - µ2 > 0,df = n1 + n2 - 2 = 10 + 10 - 2 = 18 t.05,18 = 1.734
Sample 1 Sample 2
n1 = 10 n2 = 10
x 1 = 45.38 x 2 = 40.49
s1 = 2.357 s2 = 2.355
( x1  x 2 )  ( 1   2 )
t = = 4.64
s1 (n1  1)  s 2 (n2  1) 1 1
2 2


n1  n2  2 n1 n2

decision is to reject the null hypothesis.

10.15 Peoria Evansville

n1 = 21 n2 = 26
x1 = 116,900 x 2 = 114,000
s1 = 2,300 s2 = 1,750 df = 21 + 26 – 2

a) 90% level of confidence, /2 = .05 t .05,45 = 1.684 (used df = 40)

s1 (n1  1)  s 2 (n2  1) 1
2 2
1
( x1  x 2 )  t  =
n1  n2  2 n1 n2

(2300)2 (20)  (1750)2 (25) 1 1

(116,900 – 114,000) + 1.684  =
21  26  2 21 26
2,900 + 994.62

1905.38 < 1 - 2 < 3894.62

10.25 d = 1302.82, sd = 4938.22, n = 11, df = 10, = .01, t.005,10= 3.169

sd 4938.22
d t = 1302.82 + 3.169 = 1302.82 + 4718.42
n 11
 -3415.6 < D < 6021.2
10.33 H0: pm - pw = 0,Ha: pm - pw < 0, nm = 374, nw = 481, p̂ m = .59, p̂ w = .70
z.05 = -1.645

nm pˆ m  n w pˆ w 374(.59)  481(.70)
p  = .652
nm  nw 374  481

( pˆ 1  pˆ 2 )  ( p1  p 2 ) (.59  .70)  (0)

z  = -3.35
1 1  1 1 
p  q   (.652)(. 348)  
 n1 n   374 481 
 

decision is to reject the null hypothesis.