Question

The Consumer Fraud Council claims that Skippy Foods doesn't 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?

Answer 1

Since the p-value is 0.07;

At level of significance .10, the p-value< level of significance and hence we reject the null hypothesis: "that the population mean (u) is usually 10 ounces and the production process is not generating “light” bottles" in favor of alternative.

At level of significance 0.05, the p-value > level of significance and here we conclude that data doesn't have enough evidence to be statistically significant evidence against the null hypothesis. Hence we do not reject null in favour of alternative.

We generally take level to be 0.05 and hence shouldn't recomment a boycott