Are we statistically better than the dog? At the end of week 9 (n=180 or 9 weeks

Question

Are we statistically better than the dog? At the end of week 9 (n=180 or 9 weeks x 20 games), Buddy Cessna's prognosticating precentage in the Eagle is .539. Larry Hodge's precentage is .617. Assumning that Buddy's number is the base line (population value) associted with minimal sports forecasting ability, develop a 99% CI =, using larry's as a point estimator and tell me if he's statistically better than the dog and why or why not.

a) Yes, because Buddy's precentage is a plausiblr value given the CI

b) No, Beccause Buddy's precetnage is a plausible value, given the CI

c) Yes, because Buddy's a dog and should be 50/50

d) Yes, because out values falls in the rejection region of the test

e) Yes, because out p-value is smaller than Buddy's

The correct answer is b) but I have a hard time understanding how my teach got there.

Explanation / Answer

The correct answer is b) but I have a hard time understanding how my teach got there.

the 99% CI is made as (c,d) with the 99% confidence that is interval shuould contain the true value of parameter

as if Buddy`s score fall into the CI then it can be claim that wew are not tatistically better than the dog

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

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