Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Math
Statistics
Gary has discovered a new painting tool to help him in his work. If he can prove to himself that the painting tool reduces the amount of time it takes to paint a room, he has decided to invest in a tool for each of his helpers as well. From records of recent painting jobs that he completed before he got the new tool, Gary collected data for a random sample of 6 medium-sized rooms. He determined that the mean amount of time that it took him to paint each room was 4.5 hours with a standard deviation of 0.3 hours. For a random sample of 8 medium-sized rooms that he painted using the new tool, he found that it took him a mean of 4.2 hours to paint each room with a standard deviation of 0.2 hours. At the 0.01 level, can Gary conclude that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool was greater than his mean time when using the tool? Assume that both populations are approximately normal and that the population variances are equal. Let painting times without using the tool be Population 1 and let painting times when using the tool be Population 2. Step 3 of 3: Draw a conclusion and interpret the decision. Answer 国 Tables E Keypad Keyboard Shortcuts We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary's claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary's claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. We fall to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary's claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary's claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool.

Gary has discovered a new painting tool to help him in his work. If he can prove to himself that the painting tool reduces the amount of time it takes to paint a room, he has decided to invest in a tool for each of his helpers as well. From records of recent painting jobs that he completed before he got the new tool, Gary collected data for a random sample of 6 medium-sized rooms. He determined that the mean amount of time that it took him to paint each room was 4.5 hours with a standard deviation of 0.3 hours. For a random sample of 8 medium-sized rooms that he painted using the new tool, he found that it took him a mean of 4.2 hours to paint each room with a standard deviation of 0.2 hours. At the 0.01 level, can Gary conclude that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool was greater than his mean time when using the tool? Assume that both populations are approximately normal and that the population variances are equal. Let painting times without using the tool be Population 1 and let painting times when using the tool be Population 2. Step 3 of 3: Draw a conclusion and interpret the decision. Answer 国 Tables E Keypad Keyboard Shortcuts We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary's claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary's claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. We fall to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary's claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary's claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool.

MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications
MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications
6th Edition
ISBN:9781119256830
Author:Amos Gilat
Publisher:Amos Gilat
Chapter1: Starting With Matlab
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1P
See similar textbooks
icon
Related questions
Question
Gary has discovered a new painting tool to help him in his work. If he can prove to himself that the painting tool reduces the amount of time it takes to paint a room, he has decided to invest in a tool for each of his helpers as well. From records of recent painting jobs that he completed before he got the new tool, Gary collected data for a random sample of 6 medium-sized rooms. He determined that the mean amount of time that it took him to paint each room was 4.5 hours with a standard deviation of 0.3 hours. For a random sample of 8 medium-sized rooms that he painted using the new tool, he found that it took him a mean of 4.2 hours to paint each room with a standard deviation of 0.2 hours. At the 0.01 level, can Gary conclude that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool was greater than his mean time when using the tool? Assume that both populations are approximately normal and that the population variances are equal. Let painting times without using the tool be Population 1 and let painting times when using the tool be Population 2. Step 3 of 3: Draw a conclusion and interpret the decision. **Answer** - We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary’s claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. - We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary’s claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. - We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary’s claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. - We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary’s claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool.
Transcribed Image Text:Gary has discovered a new painting tool to help him in his work. If he can prove to himself that the painting tool reduces the amount of time it takes to paint a room, he has decided to invest in a tool for each of his helpers as well. From records of recent painting jobs that he completed before he got the new tool, Gary collected data for a random sample of 6 medium-sized rooms. He determined that the mean amount of time that it took him to paint each room was 4.5 hours with a standard deviation of 0.3 hours. For a random sample of 8 medium-sized rooms that he painted using the new tool, he found that it took him a mean of 4.2 hours to paint each room with a standard deviation of 0.2 hours. At the 0.01 level, can Gary conclude that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool was greater than his mean time when using the tool? Assume that both populations are approximately normal and that the population variances are equal. Let painting times without using the tool be Population 1 and let painting times when using the tool be Population 2. Step 3 of 3: Draw a conclusion and interpret the decision. **Answer** - We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary’s claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. - We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is sufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary’s claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. - We fail to reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary’s claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool. - We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is insufficient evidence at a 0.01 level of significance to support Gary’s claim that his mean time for painting a medium-sized room without using the tool is greater than his mean time when using the tool.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps with 1 images

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer
Similar questions
  • SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications
MATLAB: An Introduction with Applications
Statistics
ISBN:
9781119256830
Author:
Amos Gilat
Publisher:
John Wiley & Sons Inc
Probability and Statistics for Engineering and th…
Probability and Statistics for Engineering and th…
Statistics
ISBN:
9781305251809
Author:
Jay L. Devore
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Statistics for The Behavioral Sciences (MindTap C…
Statistics for The Behavioral Sciences (MindTap C…
Statistics
ISBN:
9781305504912
Author:
Frederick J Gravetter, Larry B. Wallnau
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Elementary Statistics: Picturing the World (7th E…
Elementary Statistics: Picturing the World (7th E…
Statistics
ISBN:
9780134683416
Author:
Ron Larson, Betsy Farber
Publisher:
PEARSON
The Basic Practice of Statistics
The Basic Practice of Statistics
Statistics
ISBN:
9781319042578
Author:
David S. Moore, William I. Notz, Michael A. Fligner
Publisher:
W. H. Freeman
Introduction to the Practice of Statistics
Introduction to the Practice of Statistics
Statistics
ISBN:
9781319013387
Author:
David S. Moore, George P. McCabe, Bruce A. Craig
Publisher:
W. H. Freeman
SEE MORE TEXTBOOKS