Part 3: Hypothesis Testing
In 2011, the national percent of low-income working families had an approximately normal distribution with a mean of 31.3% and a standard deviation of 6.2% (The Working Poor Families Project, 2011). Although it remained slow, some politicians claimed that the recovery from the Great Recession was steady and noticeable. As a result, it was believed that the national percent of low-income working families was significantly lower in 2014 than it was in 2011. To support this belief, a spring 2014 sample of n=16 jurisdictions produced a sample mean of 29.8% for the percent of low-income working families, with a sample standard deviation of 4.1%. Using an α=0.10 significance level, test the claim that the national average percent of low-income working families had improved by 2014.
Reference(s): The Working Poor Families Project. (2011). Indicators and Data. Retrieved from http://www.workingpoorfamilies.org/indicators/
2011 Data |
||
Jurisdiction |
Percent of low income working families (<200% poverty level) |
Percent of 18-64 year olds with no HS diploma |
Alabama |
37.3 |
15.3 |
Alaska |
25.9 |
8.6 |
Arizona |
38.9 |
14.8 |
Arkansas |
41.8 |
14 |
California |
34.3 |
17.6 |
Colorado |
27.6 |
10.1 |
Connecticut |
21.1 |
9.5 |
Delaware |
27.8 |
11.9 |
District of Columbia |
23.2 |
10.8 |
Florida |
37.3 |
13.1 |
Georgia |
36.6 |
14.9 |
Hawaii |
25.8 |
7.2 |
Idaho |
38.6 |
10.7 |
Illinois |
30.4 |
11.5 |
Indiana |
31.9 |
12.2 |
Iowa |
28.8 |
8.1 |
Kansas |
32 |
9.7 |
Kentucky |
34.1 |
13.6 |
Louisiana |
36.3 |
16.1 |
Maine |
30.4 |
7.1 |
Maryland |
19.5 |
9.7 |
Massachusetts |
20.1 |
9.1 |
Michigan |
31.6 |
10 |
Minnesota |
24.2 |
7.3 |
Mississippi |
43.6 |
17 |
Missouri |
32.7 |
11.1 |
Montana |
36 |
7 |
Nebraska |
31.1 |
8.7 |
Nevada |
37.4 |
16.6 |
New Hampshire |
19.7 |
7.3 |
New Jersey |
21.2 |
10.1 |
New Mexico |
43 |
16.2 |
New York |
30.2 |
13 |
North Carolina |
36.2 |
13.6 |
North Dakota |
27.2 |
5.9 |
Ohio |
31.8 |
10.3 |
Oklahoma |
37.4 |
13.2 |
Oregon |
33.9 |
10.8 |
Pennsylvania |
26 |
9.4 |
Rhode Island |
26.9 |
12 |
South Carolina |
38.3 |
14.2 |
South Dakota |
31 |
8.7 |
Tennessee |
36.6 |
12.7 |
Texas |
38.3 |
17.8 |
Utah |
32.3 |
9.9 |
Vermont |
26.2 |
6.6 |
Virginia |
23.3 |
10.2 |
Washington |
26.4 |
10.2 |
West Virginia |
36.1 |
12.9 |
Wisconsin |
28.7 |
8.5 |
Wyoming |
28.1 |
8 |
Let 1 represent the 2014 data and 2 represent the 2011 data
We conduct a lower-tailed t test for independent samples to test if μ1 < μ2
Data:
n1 = 16
n2 = 51
x1-bar = 29.8
x2-bar = 31.3
s1 = 4.1
s2 = 6.2
Hypotheses:
Ho: μ1 ≥ μ2
Ha: μ1 < μ2
Decision Rule:
α = 0.1
Degrees of freedom = 16 + 51 - 2 = 65
Critical t- score = -1.294712013
Reject Ho if t < -1.294712013
Test Statistic:
Pooled SD, s = √[{(n1 - 1) s1^2 + (n2 - 1) s2^2} / (n1 + n2 - 2)] = √(((16 - 1) * 4.1^2 + (51 - 1) * 6.2^2) / (16 + 51 - 2)) = 5.783464493
SE = s * √{(1 /n1) + (1 /n2)} = 5.78346449271209 * √((1/16) + (1/51)) = 1.657220876
t = (x1-bar -x2-bar)/SE = (29.8 - 31.3)/1.65722087640197 = -0.9051298
p- value = 0.184369716
Decision (in terms of the hypotheses):
Since -0.9051298 > -1.294712013 we fail to reject Ho
Conclusion (in terms of the problem):
There is no sufficient evidence to support the claim that the national average percent of low-income working families had improved by 2014.
[Please give me a Thumbs Up if you are satisfied with my answer. If you are not, please comment on it, so I can edit the answer. Thanks.]
Part 3: Hypothesis Testing In 2011, the national percent of low-income working families had an ap...
In 2011, the national percent of low-income working families had an approximately normal distribution with a mean of 31.3% and a standard deviation of 6.2% (The Working Poor Families Project, 2011). Although it remained slow, some politicians claimed that the recovery from the Great Recession was steady and noticeable. As a result, it was believed that the national percent of low-income working families was significantly lower in 2014 than it was in 2011. To support this belief, a spring 2014...
During the recovery from the Great Recession of 2007-2009, the economic situation for many families improved. However, in 2011 the recovery was slow and it was uncertain as to how much had really changed on the national level. To estimate the national average of the percent of low-income working families, a representative simple random sample of the percent of low-income working families from each of the country’s reporting jurisdictions could be used to calculate a point estimate and create a...
CASE 1-5 Financial Statement Ratio Computation Refer to Campbell Soup Company's financial Campbell Soup statements in Appendix A. Required: Compute the following ratios for Year 11. Liquidity ratios: Asset utilization ratios:* a. Current ratio n. Cash turnover b. Acid-test ratio 0. Accounts receivable turnover c. Days to sell inventory p. Inventory turnover d. Collection period 4. Working capital turnover Capital structure and solvency ratios: 1. Fixed assets turnover e. Total debt to total equity s. Total assets turnover f. Long-term...