Answer:
There is 8% (P=0.08) that Frances concludes that the new equipment increases the average daily jewelry production when in fact the new equipment has no effect.
Step-by-step explanation:
We have one-sample z-test with a significance level of 0.08 and a power ot the test of 0.85.
In this test, the null hypothesis will state that the new equipment has the same productivity of the older equipment. The alternative hypothesis is that there is a significative improvement from the use of new equipment.
The probability that Frances concludes that the new equipment increases the average daily jewelry production when in fact the new equipment has no effect is equal to the probability of making a Type I error (rejecting a true null hypothesis).
The probability of making a Type I error is defined by the level of significance, and in this test this value is α=0.08.
Then, there is 8% that Frances concludes that the new equipment increases the average daily jewelry production when in fact the new equipment has no effect.
Answer:
7.56 km²
Step-by-step explanation:
Given data:
Width of the fjord, w = 6.3 km
Retreated terminus of the glacier between may 2001 and June 2005, d = 7.5 km
thus, the length lost , y = 7.5 - 6.3 = 1.2 km
now, the area is given as:
A = Length × width
on substituting the values, we get
A = 1.2 × 6.3
or
A = 7.56 km²
Hence, the surface area lost by the glacier in the fjord is 7.56 km²
She will need 12 seconds because -20•12=-240
