Question

The manufacturer of a certain engine treatment claims that if you add their product to your​ engine, it will be protected from excessive wear. An infomercial claims that a woman drove 5 hours without​ oil, thanks to the engine treatment. A magazine tested engines in which they added the treatment to the motor​ oil, ran the​ engines, drained the​ oil, and then determined the time until the engines seized. Complete parts ​(a) and ​(b) below. ​(a) Determine the null and alternative hypotheses that the magazine will test. Upper H 0​: ▼ sigma p mu ▼ greater than equals less than not equals 5 Upper H 1​: ▼ mu sigma p ▼ less than equals greater than not equals 5 ​(b) Both engines took exactly 16 minutes to seize. What conclusion might the magazine make based on this​ evidence? A. The​ infomercial's claim is true. B. The​ infomercial's claim is not true

Answer 1

a)

Explanation: The infomercial claims that a woman drove 5 hours without​ oil, hence the null hypothesis is that the mean number of hours an treated engine run without oil is 5.

b)

Answer: B. The​ infomercial's claim is not true

Explanation: Since both the engines takes 16 minutes to seize, the mean time engine run without oil is much much less than 5 hours. hence based on this evidence we can conclude that the infomercial's claim is not true. However we can not perform statistical analysis since the small sample size (n=2 here) introduces bias but based on given evidence we can conclude this.