6. Bretton Woods Ski Resort utilizes literally hundreds of snow makers which the
ID: 3322389 • Letter: 6
Question
6. Bretton Woods Ski Resort utilizes literally hundreds of snow makers which they rely on to produce snow when mother nature doesn't produce adequately. A chemical manufacturer has developed a new chemical which they claim, when added to the air/water mix, will increase snow maker output. Bretton Woods has decided to test this chemical to see if it works. A mainstay in Bretton Woods' snow-making arsenal is the SMI Super Polecat snow gun. They randomly select 9 of their SMI Super Polecats and measure snow output per hour before and after using the chemical. They carefully monitored the weather conditions (temperature, dew point, wind, etc.) to make sure that whatever difference in output occurs is due only to the use of the chemical. The results, in cubic feet per hour (CFH), are listed in the table below. At the .01 level of significance, test to see if the new chemical is successful in increasing the amount of snow the SMI Super Polecats produce. List and clearly label all eight steps. Round to 4 (FOUR) decimal places.
SMI Super Polecat
Before
After
1
185
186
2
192
191
3
200
199
4
176
178
5
189
190
6
202
205
7
171
174
8
182
183
******example of 8 steps needed
Step 1: H0: D = 0
Ha: D > 0
Step 2: t = d-D/Sd/sqr rt N
Step 3: = .01
Step 4: Decision Rule: Reject the Null Hypothesis if t > 2.9980
Step 5: n = 8; = 1.1250; sd = 1.4577; D = 0 (via from the null hypothesis)
Step 6: t = = = 2.1828
Step 7: 2.1828 is NOT greater than 2.9980 Therefore we Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis.
Step 8: At the .01 level of significance, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the new sound is successful in reducing pulse rates.
SMI Super Polecat
Before
After
1
185
186
2
192
191
3
200
199
4
176
178
5
189
190
6
202
205
7
171
174
8
182
183
Explanation / Answer
H0: D = 0 v/s Ha: D > 0
H0: there is no significant difference in snow maker output before and after using the chemical
H1: there is more than significant difference in snow maker output before and after using the chemical
d=-1.13
sd=1.55
using given formula for t,
t=t = d-D/Sd/sqr rt N
t=abs(sqrt(8)*-1.1250/1.477)
t=2.0494
at alpha=0.01 we has t tab value=2.9980
here,
2.1828 is NOT greater than 2.9980.
Therefore, We do not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.hence, Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis.
conclusion: There is not enough evidence to conclude that the there is a significant difference in snow maker output before is more than after using the chemical
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.