The purchasing director of an industrial part factory is investigating the possibility of purchasing a new type of milling machine. He determines that the new machine will be bought if there is evidence that the parts produced have a higher mean breaking strength than those from the old machine. The population standard deviation of the breaking strength for the old machine is 10kg and for the new machine is 9 kg. A sample of 100 parts was taken from each machine. Old machine indicates a sample mean of 65kg while new machine indicates a sample mean of 72 kg. Using the 0.01 level of significance, is there evidence that the purchasing director should buy the new machine? (critical value = + 2.575 )
The following null and alternative hypotheses need to be tested:
"H_0:\\mu_1\\ge\\mu_2"
"H_a:\\mu_1<\\mu_2"
This corresponds to a left-tailed test, and a z-test for two means, with known population standard deviations will be used.
Based on the information provided, the significance level is "\\alpha = 0.01," and the critical value for a left-tailed test is "z_c=-2.3263."
The rejection region for this left-tailed test is "R = \\{z: z <- 2.3263\\}."
The z-statistic is computed as follows:
"=\\dfrac{65-72}{\\sqrt{10^2\/100+9^2\/100}}=-5.20306"
Since it is observed that "z = -5.20306<-2.3263= z_c,"
it is then concluded that the null hypothesis is rejected.
Using the P-value approach: The p-value is "p=P(Z<-5.20306)=0," and since "p=0<0.01=\\alpha," it is concluded that the null hypothesis is rejected.
Therefore, there is enough evidence to claim that the population mean "\\mu_1"
is less than "\\mu_2," at the "\\alpha = 0.01" significance level.
Therefore, there is enough evidence to claim that the purchasing director should buy the new machine at the "\\alpha = 0.01" significance level.
Comments
Leave a comment