Joachim, a third student, noted that the confidence interval in part (a) gives plausible values of the parameter as an interval between two values. He suggested that they develop a one-sided confidence interval because they were only concerned with whether the number 6 was landing face up more often than expected, not less often. The one sided-interval will determine a value L such that all plausible values of p are greater than L . The formula for L is L=pˆ+z∗pˆ(1−pˆ)n−−−−−√ . (i) Determine the values of z∗ needed to create the one-sided 95 percent confidence interval. Then calculate the value of L . (ii) Do the results of Joachim's one-sided confidence interval agree with results of Aurelia's significance test in part (b)? Explain your reasoning.

4444444444444 i think

the inequality is:

250c+180g≥950

step-by-step explanation:

let c denotes the number of days in a week   miyoko worked as a cryptographer.

and g denotes the number of days in a week she works as a geologist.

now we are given that she earns $250 for every day she works as a cryptographer,and earns $180 for every day she works as a geologist.

now miyoko's goal is to earn more than $950 this week.

hence, the inequality could be represented as:

250c+180g≥950

1 1/5

step-by-step explanation:

the results from a pre-test for students for the year 2000 and the year 2010 are illustrated in the box plot. what do these results tell us about how students performed on the 29 question pre-test for the two years?

if we compare only the lowest and highest scores between the two years, we might conclude that the students in 2010 did better than the students in 2010. this conclusion seems to follow since the lowest score of 8 in 2010 is greater in value than the lowest score of 6 in 2000. also, the highest score of 28 in 2010 is greater in value than the highest score of 27 in 2000.

but the box portion of the illustration gives us more detailed information. the middle bar in each box shows us that the median score of 20 in 2000 is greater in value than the median score of 17 in 2010. further, we note that the box and whiskers divide the illustration into four pieces. each of these four pieces represents the same portion of students. so, the upper half of the students in 2000 scored in the same score range as the upper one-fourth of the students in 2010, see the illustration at a score of 20.

by considering the upper one-fourth, upper half, and upper three-fourths instead of just the lowest and highest scores, we would conclude that the students as a whole did much better in 2000 than in 2010. we would conclude that as a whole the students in 2010 are less prepared than the students in 2000.

in this section, we discuss box-and-whisker plots and the five key values used in constructing a box-and-whisker plot. the key values are called a five-number summary, which consists of the minimum, first quartile, median, third quartile, and maximum.

step-by-step explanation: