The recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is 16%. A warden suspects that this percent is different if the sex offender is also a drug addict. Of the 319 convicted sex offenders who were also drug addicts, 35 of them became repeat offenders. What can be concluded at the αα = 0.10 level of significance? For this study, we should use Select an answer z-test for a population proportion t-test for a population mean The null and alternative hypotheses would be: Ho: ? p μ Select an answer < > ≠ = (please enter a decimal) H1: ? p μ Select an answer > < ≠ = (Please enter a decimal) The test statistic ? z t = (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 Select an answer fail to reject reject accept the null hypothesis. Thus, the final conclusion is that ... The data suggest the populaton proportion is significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16%. The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, so there is statistically insignificant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16%. The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, 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 16%. Interpret the p-value in the context of the study. There is a 1.42% chance of a Type I error. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 1.42% chance that either fewer than 11% of the 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders or more than 21% of the 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders. There is a 1.42% chance that the percent of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders differs from 16%. If the sample proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 1.42% chance that we would conclude either fewer than 16% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders or more than 16% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders. Interpret the level of significance in the context of the study. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 10% 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 16%. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 10% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offe

The recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is 16%. A warden suspects that this percent is different if the sex offender is also a drug addict. Of the 319 convicted sex offenders who were also drug addicts, 35 of them became repeat offenders. What can be concluded at the αα = 0.10 level of significance? For this study, we should use Select an answer z-test for a population proportion t-test for a population mean The null and alternative hypotheses would be: Ho: ? p μ Select an answer < > ≠ = (please enter a decimal) H1: ? p μ Select an answer > < ≠ = (Please enter a decimal) The test statistic ? z t = (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 Select an answer fail to reject reject accept the null hypothesis. Thus, the final conclusion is that ... The data suggest the populaton proportion is significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16%. The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, so there is statistically insignificant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16%. The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, 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 16%. Interpret the p-value in the context of the study. There is a 1.42% chance of a Type I error. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 1.42% chance that either fewer than 11% of the 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders or more than 21% of the 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders. There is a 1.42% chance that the percent of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders differs from 16%. If the sample proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 1.42% chance that we would conclude either fewer than 16% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders or more than 16% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders. Interpret the level of significance in the context of the study. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 10% 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 16%. If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 10% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offe

Name: The recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is 16%. A warden susp
Uploaded: 2024-03-20T07:07:12.000Z
Channel: Bartleby
Description: The recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders is 16%. A warden suspects that this percent is different if the sex offender is also a drug addict. Of the 319 convicted sex offenders who were also drug addicts, 35 of them became repeat offenders. Wh

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

Topic Video

Question

For this study, we should use Select an answer z-test for a population proportion t-test for a population mean
The null and alternative hypotheses would be:
Ho: ? p μ Select an answer < > ≠ = (please enter a decimal)
H₁: ? p μ Select an answer > < ≠ = (Please enter a decimal)

The test statistic ? z t = (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 Select an answer fail to reject reject accept the null hypothesis.
Thus, the final conclusion is that ...
- The data suggest the populaton proportion is significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, so there is statistically significant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16%.
- The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, so there is statistically insignificant evidence to conclude that the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16%.
- The data suggest the population proportion is not significantly different from 16% at αα = 0.10, 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 16%.
Interpret the p-value in the context of the study.
- There is a 1.42% chance of a Type I error.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 1.42% chance that either fewer than 11% of the 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders or more than 21% of the 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts in the study become repeat offenders.
- There is a 1.42% chance that the percent of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders differs from 16%.
- If the sample proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 11% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 1.42% chance that we would conclude either fewer than 16% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders or more than 16% of all convicted sex offender drug addicts become repeat offenders.
Interpret the level of significance in the context of the study.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed then there would be a 10% 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 16%.
- If the population proportion of convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is 16% and if another 319 convicted sex offender drug addicts are observed, then there would be a 10% chance that we would end up falsely concluding that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16%.
- There is a 10% chance that Lizard People aka "Reptilians" are running the world.
- There is a 10% chance that the proportion of all convicted sex offender drug addicts who become repeat offenders is different from 16%.

Expert Solution

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps with 2 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.