The recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is 11%. A warden suspects that this percent is lower if the sex offender is also a drug addict. Of the 321 convicted sex offenders who were also drug addicts, 26 of them became repeat offenders. What can be concluded at the αα = 0.01 level of significance? For this study, we should use Correct The null and alternative hypotheses would be: Ho: Correct Correct Correct (please enter a decimal) H1: Correct Incorrect Correct (Please enter a decimal) p < The test statistic Correct = (please show your answer to 3 decimal places.) The p-value = (Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.) The p-value is αα Based on this, we should the null hypothesis. Thus, the final conclusion is that ... The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 11%. The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically insignificant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%. The data suggest the populaton proportion is significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%. Interpret the p-value in the context of the study. If the sample proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 8% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are surveyed then there would be a 4.84% chance of concluding that fewer than 11% of convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders. There is a 11% chance of a Type I error. There is a 4.84% chance that fewer than 11% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 321 inner city residents are surveyed then there would be a 4.84% chance that fewer than 8% of the 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders. Interpret the level of significance in the context of the study. There is a 1% chance that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 1% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 1% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 11%. There is a 1% chance that Lizard People aka "Reptilians" are running the world.

The recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is 11%. A warden suspects that this percent is lower if the sex offender is also a drug addict. Of the 321 convicted sex offenders who were also drug addicts, 26 of them became repeat offenders. What can be concluded at the αα = 0.01 level of significance? For this study, we should use Correct The null and alternative hypotheses would be: Ho: Correct Correct Correct (please enter a decimal) H1: Correct Incorrect Correct (Please enter a decimal) p < The test statistic Correct = (please show your answer to 3 decimal places.) The p-value = (Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.) The p-value is αα Based on this, we should the null hypothesis. Thus, the final conclusion is that ... The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 11%. The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically insignificant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%. The data suggest the populaton proportion is significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%. Interpret the p-value in the context of the study. If the sample proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 8% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are surveyed then there would be a 4.84% chance of concluding that fewer than 11% of convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders. There is a 11% chance of a Type I error. There is a 4.84% chance that fewer than 11% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 321 inner city residents are surveyed then there would be a 4.84% chance that fewer than 8% of the 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders. Interpret the level of significance in the context of the study. There is a 1% chance that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 1% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 1% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 11%. There is a 1% chance that Lizard People aka "Reptilians" are running the world.

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

Related questions

Question

For this study, we should use Correct

The null and alternative hypotheses would be:
Ho:    Correct      Correct Correct (please enter a decimal)


H₁:    Correct      Incorrect Correct (Please enter a decimal)
p

<

The test statistic Correct = (please show your answer to 3 decimal places.)

The p-value = (Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.)
The p-value is αα
Based on this, we should the null hypothesis.
Thus, the final conclusion is that ...
- The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 11%.
- The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically insignificant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%.
- The data suggest the populaton proportion is significantly lower than 11% at αα = 0.01, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%.
Interpret the p-value in the context of the study.
- If the sample proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 8% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are surveyed then there would be a 4.84% chance of concluding that fewer than 11% of convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders.
- There is a 11% chance of a Type I error.
- There is a 4.84% chance that fewer than 11% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 321 inner city residents are surveyed then there would be a 4.84% chance that fewer than 8% of the 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders.
Interpret the level of significance in the context of the study.
- There is a 1% chance that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 1% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11%.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is lower than 11% and if another 321 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 1% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is equal to 11%.
- There is a 1% chance that Lizard People aka "Reptilians" are running the world.

Expert Solution

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

Step by step

Solved in 4 steps with 3 images

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here