Political pundits talk about the "bounce" that a presidential candidate gets after his party's convention. In the past 40 years, it has averaged about 6 percentage points. Just before a recent convention, a random poll of 1300 likely voters found that 51% favored a particular candidate. Just afterward, another random sample of 1300 likely voters found that 53% favored that candidate. That's a two percentage point increase, but the pollsters claimed that there was no bounce. Explain. Let population 1 correspond to likely voters that favored the candidate after the convention and population 2 correspond to likely voters that favored the candidate before the convention. Find and interpret the 95% confidence interval for the difference between the percentages of likely voters that favored the candidate (population 1−population 2). Select the correct answer below and fill in the answer boxes within your choice. (Use ascending order. Round to one decimal place as needed.) A. Since the 95% confidence interval (nothing%,nothing%) does not contain 0%, it is plausible that the bounce is zero. The pollsters should have instead claimed that there was no evidence of a bounce. B. Since the 95% confidence interval (nothing%,nothing%) does not contain 0%, it is not plausible that the bounce is zero. The pollsters should have instead claimed that there was sufficient evidence of a bounce. C. Since the 95% confidence interval (nothing%,nothing%) contains 0%, it is plausible that the bounce is zero. The pollsters' claim that there was no bounce may be correct.

Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897, 0079039898, 2018

18th Edition

ISBN:9780079039897

Author:Carter

Publisher:Carter

Chapter4: Equations Of Linear Functions

Section4.5: Correlation And Causation

Problem 15PPS

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Topic Video

Question

Political pundits talk about the "bounce" that a presidential candidate gets after his party's convention. In the past 40 years, it has averaged about 6 percentage points. Just before a recent convention, a random poll of

1300

likely voters found that

51%

favored a particular candidate. Just afterward, another random sample of

1300

likely voters found that

53%

favored that candidate. That's a

two

percentage point increase, but the pollsters claimed that there was no bounce. Explain.

Let population 1 correspond to likely voters that favored the candidate after the convention and population 2 correspond to likely voters that favored the candidate before the convention. Find and interpret the

95%

confidence interval for the difference between the percentages of likely voters that favored the candidate (population

1−population

2). Select the correct answer below and fill in the answer boxes within your choice.

(Use ascending order. Round to one decimal place as needed.)

Since the

95%

confidence interval

(nothing%,nothing%)

does not contain 0%, it is plausible that the bounce is zero. The pollsters should have instead claimed that there was no evidence of a bounce.

Since the

95%

confidence interval

(nothing%,nothing%)

does not contain 0%, it is not plausible that the bounce is zero. The pollsters should have instead claimed that there was sufficient evidence of a bounce.

Since the

95%

confidence interval

(nothing%,nothing%)

contains 0%, it is plausible that the bounce is zero. The pollsters' claim that there was no bounce may be correct.

Expert Solution

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps with 1 images

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Knowledge Booster

$Hypothesis Tests and Confidence Intervals for Means$

Learn more about

Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, statistics and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.

Similar questions