The federal guideline for smog 15 parts per 10,000 in acertain volume of air. A

Question

The federal guideline for smog 15 parts per 10,000 in acertain volume of air. A city is tryingto bring its smog level downto the federal guidelines. The city comes up with a new policywhere city employees are to use city transportation to commute toand from work. A local environments group does not think the cityis doing enough and that no real decrease will occur. Anindependent agency runs its tests to find convincing evidence thatthe new policy works and comes up with a P-value of 0.017. What isreasonable to conclude about the new policy using a significancelevel of 0.025? A) We can say there is a 1.7% chance of observing that the newpolicy reduces smog as much or more than we observed just fromnatural sampling variation alone. We therefore conclude that thenew policy is more effective. B) There's a 1.7% chance we would observe that the new policyhas no effect on smog just from natural sampling variation. Wetherefore conclude that the new policy is more effective. C) We can say there is a 1.7% chance of observing that the newpolicy reduces smog as much or more than we observed just fromnatural sampling variation alone. Therefore, there is insuffcientevidence that the new policy is more effective. D) There is a 1.7% chance of the new policy having no effecton smog. E) There is a 98.3% chance of the new policy having no effecton smog. The federal guideline for smog 15 parts per 10,000 in acertain volume of air. A city is tryingto bring its smog level downto the federal guidelines. The city comes up with a new policywhere city employees are to use city transportation to commute toand from work. A local environments group does not think the cityis doing enough and that no real decrease will occur. Anindependent agency runs its tests to find convincing evidence thatthe new policy works and comes up with a P-value of 0.017. What isreasonable to conclude about the new policy using a significancelevel of 0.025? A) We can say there is a 1.7% chance of observing that the newpolicy reduces smog as much or more than we observed just fromnatural sampling variation alone. We therefore conclude that thenew policy is more effective. B) There's a 1.7% chance we would observe that the new policyhas no effect on smog just from natural sampling variation. Wetherefore conclude that the new policy is more effective. C) We can say there is a 1.7% chance of observing that the newpolicy reduces smog as much or more than we observed just fromnatural sampling variation alone. Therefore, there is insuffcientevidence that the new policy is more effective. D) There is a 1.7% chance of the new policy having no effecton smog. E) There is a 98.3% chance of the new policy having no effecton smog.

Explanation / Answer

Here the correct conclusion is, B) There's a 1.7% chance we would observe that the new policyhas no effect on smog just from natural sampling variation. Wetherefore conclude that the new policy is more effective. B) There's a 1.7% chance we would observe that the new policyhas no effect on smog just from natural sampling variation. Wetherefore conclude that the new policy is more effective.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.