<span>2/15 if drawn without replacement.
1/9 if drawn with replacement.
Assuming that the chips are drawn without replacement, there are 6 * 5 different possibilities. And that's a low enough number to exhaustively enumerate them. So they are:
1,2 : 1,3 : 1,4 : 1,5 : 1,6
2,1 : 2,3 : 2,4 : 2,5 : 2,6
3,1 : 3,2 : 3.4 : 3,5 : 3,6
4,1 : 4,2 : 4.3 : 4,5 : 4,6
5,1 : 5,2 : 5.3 : 5,4 : 5,6
6,1 : 6,2 : 6.3 : 6,4 : 6,5
Of the above 30 possible draws, there are 4 that add up to 5. So the probability is 4/30 = 2/15
If the draw is done with replacement, then there are 36 possible draws. Once again, small enough to exhaustively list, they are:
1,1 : 1,2 : 1,3 : 1,4 : 1,5 : 1,6
2,1 : 2,2 : 2,3 : 2,4 : 2,5 : 2,6
3,1 : 3,2 : 3,3 : 3.4 : 3,5 : 3,6
4,1 : 4,2 : 4.3 : 4,4 : 4,5 : 4,6
5,1 : 5,2 : 5.3 : 5,4 : 5,5 : 5,6
6,1 : 6,2 : 6.3 : 6,4 : 6,5 : 6,6
And of the above 36 possibilities, exactly 4 add up to 5. So you have 4/36 = 1/9</span>
The null and alternative hypothesis for this test are
Step-by-step explanation:
If we perform a hypothesis test, we can reject or not reject the null hypothesis.
To conclude that the tires have a decreased stopping distance (μ<215), we should state the null hypothesis and then go on with the analysis to reject it (or not).
If the null hypothesis is rejected, the claim of the manufacturer is rigth.
The alternative hypothesis would be , that would turn rigth if the null hypothesis is rejected.