The breaking strengths of cables produced by manufacturer have a mean of 1800 Kg and a standard deviation of 100 Kg. By a new technique in the manufacturing process, it is claimed that breaking strength can be increased. To test this claim, a sample of 50 cables is tested and it is found that the mean breaking strength is 1850Kg. Can we support the claim at the 0.01 significance level?Â
Consider Z-test for one population mean "(\\mu)," with known population standard deviation "(\\sigma)."
The provided sample mean is "\\bar{X}=1850" and the known population standard deviation is "\\sigma=100," and the sample size is "n=50."
The following null and alternative hypotheses need to be tested:
"H_0: \\mu=1800"
"H_1: \\mu>1800"
This corresponds to a right-tailed test, for which a z-test for one mean, with known population standard deviation will be used.
Based on the information provided, the significance level is "\\alpha=0.01," and the critical value for a right-tailed test is "z_c=2.33."
The rejection region for this right-tailed test is "R=\\{z:z>2.33\\}"
The z-statistic is computed as follows:
Since it is observed that "z=3.535534>z_c=2.33,"  it is then concluded that the null hypothesis is rejected.
Using the P-value approach: The p-value is "0.000204," and since "p=0.0002<0.01," it is concluded that the null hypothesis is rejected.
It is concluded that the null hypothesis "H_0" is rejected. Therefore, there is enough evidence to claim that the population mean "\\mu" is greater than 1800, at the 0.01 significance level.
We conclude that a new technique can improve the break strength.
Comments
Leave a comment