Question

M3 Discussion Fraudulent Claim or Not? The Consumer Fraud Council claims that a well known brand does not put the required weight of peanut butter in its 10-ounce jar. For evidence, a sample of 400 jars is selected randomly, weighed, and found to average 9.9. ounces. The p-value, .07, is associated with the hypothesis that the population mean (u) is usually 10 ounces and the production process is not generating "light bottles Has the council proved the point? Evaluate the evidence. Is the evidence statistically significant at the . 10 level? At the .05 level? Should the Consumer Fraud Council recommend a boycott? Why or why not? Be sure to use concrete examples and supporting evidence to help others in the class understand your ideas. Image: (AP Photo/Ai Behrman)

Answer 1

Based on the null hypothesis,

1. The council has proved the point of that it produces 10 ounces and does not have a light bottles. According to the p value of 0.07, it is approaching the borderline statistical significance. Hence the proposition is correct.
2. In case of the p value goes down to 0.05 then the random value hypothesis does not show significant difference in the result. The councils answer still remains the same. It tells that there is no true difference in the mean.
3. In case of the p value rise up to 0.1 then the random value hypothesis shows significant differences and it will conclude that there is error in the weight of the bottles.
4. In case of p value is 10%, then the customer fraudulence council can file a claim.