At a large company banquet for several thousand employees and their families, many of the attendees became ill the next day. The company doctor suspects that the illness may be related to the fish, one of three options for the main course. Because all the dinner guests had to preorder their meal, the doctor was able to randomly select and contact 80 people that ate the fish, of which 64 people got sick. The doctor also randomly selected (and contacted) 60 people that did not eat the fish, of which 39 people got sick. The doctor also knows that at least 1000 attendees ordered the fish. (a) Is this convincing evidence that the true proportion of all attendees who ate the fish that got sick is more than the true proportion of all attendees who did not eat the fish that got sick? (b) Based on your conclusion in part (a), which mistake (a Type I error or a Type II error) could you have made? Interpret the potential error in context.
At a large company banquet for several thousand employees and their families, many of the attendees became ill the next day. The company doctor suspects that the illness may be related to the fish, one of three options for the main course. Because all the dinner guests had to preorder their meal, the doctor was able to randomly select and contact 80 people that ate the fish, of which 64 people got sick. The doctor also randomly selected (and contacted) 60 people that did not eat the fish, of which 39 people got sick. The doctor also knows that at least 1000 attendees ordered the fish.
(a) Is this convincing evidence that the true proportion of all attendees who ate the fish that got sick is more than the true proportion of all attendees who did not eat the fish that got sick?
(b) Based on your conclusion in part (a), which mistake (a Type I error or a Type II error) could you have made? Interpret the potential error in context.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
