Instant Download PDF Statistics For Business and Economics 8th Edition Newbold Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Statistics for Business and Economics
8th Edition Newbold Solutions Manual

Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://testbankfan.com/product/statistics-for-business-and-economics-8th-edition-ne
wbold-solutions-manual/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Statistics for Business and Economics 8th Edition

Newbold Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/statistics-for-business-and-
economics-8th-edition-newbold-test-bank/
Basic Statistics for Business and Economics 8th Edition

Lind Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/basic-statistics-for-business-
and-economics-8th-edition-lind-solutions-manual/
Essentials of Statistics for Business and Economics 8th

Edition Anderson Solutions Manual
https://testbankfan.com/product/essentials-of-statistics-for-
business-and-economics-8th-edition-anderson-solutions-manual/
Basic Statistics for Business and Economics 8th Edition

Lind Test Bank
https://testbankfan.com/product/basic-statistics-for-business-
and-economics-8th-edition-lind-test-bank/
McClave Solutions Manual
economics-12th-edition-mcclave-solutions-manual/

McClave Solutions Manual
economics-13th-edition-mcclave-solutions-manual/

Anderson Solutions Manual
economics-12th-edition-anderson-solutions-manual/


Chapter 9:
Hypothesis Testing: Single Population
9.1 H : p  .2; H : p  .2;

0 1
9.2 H 0
: No change in interest rates is warranted
H 1
: Reduce interest rates to stimulate the economy
9.3 H :p 0
 p : There is no difference in the percentage of underfilled cereal
A B
packages
H :p1 A
 p : Lower percentage after the change
B
9.4 a. European perspective:

H 0 : Genetically modified food stuffs are safe
H : They are not safe1
b. U.S. farmer perspective:

H 0 : Genetically modified food stuffs are not safe
H 1
: They are safe
9.5 H : T  T No difference in the total number of votes between Bush and Gore
0 B G
H : T  T Bush with more votes

1 B G
9.6 H : T  T No difference in the total number of votes between Bush and Gore
0 B G
H : T T Gore with more votes

1 B G
9.7 A random sample is obtained from a population with a variance of 625 and the sample mean is
computed. Test the null hypothesis H 0 :  = 100 versus the alternative H 1 :   100 . 2
= 625 Compute the critical value xc and state the decision rule
a. n = 25. Reject H 0
if x  xc = 0 + z  n = 100 +1.645(25)/ 25 =
108.225
b. n = 16. Reject H 0
if x  xc = 0 + z  n = 100 +1.645(25)/ 16 =
110.28125
c. n = 44. Reject H 0
if x  xc = 0 + z  n = 100 +1.645(25)/ 44 =
106.1998
Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

9-1
9-2 Statistics for Business & Economics, 7th edition
d. n = 32 Reject H 0
if x  xc = 0 + z  n = 100 +1.645(25)/ 32 = 107.26994
9.8 A random sample of n = 25 is obtained from a population with a variance  2 and the
sample mean is computed. Test the null hypothesis H 0 :  = 100 versus the alternative
H 1
:   100 with alpha = .05. Compute the critical value xc and state the decision rule
a.  2 = 225. Reject H 0
if x  xc = 0 + z  n = 100 +1.645(15)/ 25 = 104.935
b.  2
= 900. Reject H 0
if x  xc = 0 + z  n = 100 +1.645(30)/ 25 = 109.87
c.  2 = 400. Reject H 0
if x  xc = 0 + z  n = 100 +1.645(20)/ 25 = 106.58
d.  2 = 600. Reject H 0
if x  xc = 0 + z  n = 100 +1.645(24.4949)/ 25 = 108.0588
9.9 A random sample is obtained from a population with variance = 400 and the sample
mean is computed to be 70. Consider the null hypothesis H 0 :  = 80 versus the
alternative H :
1
 80 . Compute the p-value
x − 0
70 − 80
a. n = 25. z = = = -2.50. p − value = P ( z p  −2.50) = .0062
 n 20 25
x − 0 70 − 80
b. n = 16. z = = = -2.00. p − value = P ( z p  −2.00) = .0228
 n 20 16
x − 0 70 − 80
c. n = 44. z = = = -3.32. p − value = P ( z p  −3.32) = .0004
 n 20 44
x − 0 70 − 80
d. n = 32. z = = = -2.83. p − value = P ( z p  −2.83) = .0023
 n 20 32
9.10 A random sample of n = 25, variance =  2 and the sample mean is = 70. Consider the
null hypothesis H 0 :  = 80 versus the alternative H 1 :   80 . Compute the p-
value
x − 0
70 − 80
a.  2 = 225. z = = -3.33. p − value = P ( z p  −3.33) = .0004
=
 n 15 25
x − 0 70 − 80
b.  2 = 900. z = = = -1.67. p − value = P ( z p  −1.67) = .0475
 n 30 25
x − 0 70 − 80
c.  2 = 400. z = = = -2.50. p − value = P ( z p  −2.50) = .0062
 n 20 25
x − 0 70 − 80
d.  2 = 600. z = = = -2.04. p − value = P ( z p  −2.04) = .0207
 n 24.4949 25

Chapter 9: Hypothesis Testing: Single Population 9-3
9.11 H : 0
 16 ; H :
1
 16 ; reject H 0
if Z.10 < -1.28
15.84 − 16
Z= = -1.6, therefore, Reject H 0
at the 10% level.
.4 16
9.12 H : 0
 50 ; H :
1
 50 ; reject H 0
if Z.10 < -1.28
48.2 − 50
Z= = -1.8, therefore, Reject H 0
at the 10% level.
3 9
9.13 a. H : 0
= 3; H : 1
 3 ; reject H 0
if Z.05 > 1.645
3.07 − 3
Z= = 1.4, therefore, Do Not Reject H 0 at the 5% level.
.4 64
b. p-value = 1 – FZ(1.4) = 1 - .9192 = .0808
c. the p-value would be higher – the graph should show that the p-value now
corresponds to the area in both of the tails of the distribution whereas before it was
the area in one of the tails.
d. A one-sided alternative is more appropriate since we are not interested in detecting
possible low levels of impurity, only high levels of impurity.

9.14 Test H :0

 100 ; H :1
 100 , using n = 25 and alpha = .05
x − 0 106 − 100
a. x = 106, s = 15 . Reject if  tn −1,= 2.00. Since 2.00 is greater than
s n 15 25
the critical value of 1.711, there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
x − 0 104 − 100
b. x = 104, s = 10 . Reject if  tn −1, , = 2.00. Since 2.00 is greater than
s n 10 25
the critical value of 1.711, there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
x − 0 95 − 100
c. Assuming a one-tailed test, x = 95, s = 10 . Reject if  tn −1, , = -2.50.
s n 10 25
Since -2.50 is less than the critical value of 1.711, there is insufficient evidence to
reject the null hypothesis.
x − 0 92 − 100
d. Assuming a one-tailed upper test, x = 92, s = 18 . Reject if  tn −1, , =
s n 18 25
-2.22. Since -2.22 is less than the critical value of 1.711, there is insufficient
evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
9.15 Test H :0

= 100 ; H : 1
 100 , using n = 36 and alpha = .05
x − 0 106 − 100
a. x = 106, s = 15 . Reject if  −tn −1,  ,
= 2.40. Since 2.40 is greater
s n 15 36
than -1.690, there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

x − 0 104 − 100
b. x = 104, s = 10 . Reject if  −tn −1, , = 2.40. Since 2.40 is greater
s n 10 36
than -1.690, there is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
x − 0 95 − 100
c. x = 95, s = 10 . Reject if  −tn −1, , = -3.00. Since -3.00 is less than
s n 10 36
the critical value of -1.690, there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
x − 0 92 − 100
d. x = 92, s = 18 . Reject if  −tn −1, , = -2.67. Since -2.67 is less than
s n 18 36
the critical value of -1.690, there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
9.16 H : 0
 3; H 1 :   3;
2.4 − 3
t= = -3.33, p-value is < .005. Reject H 0
at any common level of alpha
1.8 100
9.17 H : 0
= 4; H 1 :   4; reject H 0
if 2.576 > t1561,.005 > -2.576
4.27 − 4
t= = 8.08, p-value is < .010. Reject H 0
at any common level of alpha.
1.32 1562
9.18 H : 0
= 0; H 1 :   0;
.078 − 0
at any common level of alpha
.201 76
9.19 H : 0
 3; H 1 :   3; reject H 0
if t171,.01 > 2.326
3.31 − 3
.7 172
9.20 H : 0
= 0; H 1 :   0;
−2.91 − 0
t= = -3.35, p-value is < .005. Reject H 0
11.33 170
9.21 H : 0
= 125.32; H 1 :   125.32; reject H 0
if |t15, .05/2 | > 2.131
131.78 − 125.32
t= = 1.017, p-value is > .200. Do not reject H 0
at the .05 level.
25.4 16
9.22 a. No, the 95% confidence level provides for 2.5% of the area in either tail. This does not
correspond to a one-tailed hypothesis test with an alpha of 5% which has 5% of the area in
one of the tails.

b. Yes.
9.23 H : 0
= 10; H 1 :   10;
8.82 − 10
t= = -1.554, p-value is between .100 and .050. Do not reject H 0
at
2.4013 10
common levels of alpha.
9.24 H : 0
= 20; H 1 :   20; reject H 0
if |t8, .05/2 | > 2.306
20.3556 − 20
t= = 1.741, therefore, do not reject H 0
at the 5% level
.6126 9
9.25 H : 0
= 78.5; H 1 :   78.5; reject H 0
if |t7, .10/2 | > 1.895
74.5 − 78.5
t= = -1.815, therefore, do not reject H 0
at the 10% level
6.2335 8
9.26 The population values must be assumed to be normally distributed.

H 0 :   50; H 1 :   50; reject H 0 if t19, .05 < -1.729
41.3 − 50
t= = -3.189, therefore, reject H 0
at the 5% level
12.2 20
9.27 a. H :0
 400; H 1 :   400;
381.35 − 400
t= = -1.486, p-value = .0797, therefore, reject H 0 at alpha levels
48.60 15
greater than 7.97%
b. Yes, with a larger sample size, the standard error would be smaller and hence, the
calculated value of t would be larger. This would yield a smaller p-value and hence
the company’s claim could be rejected at a lower significance level than part a.
9.28 A random sample is obtained to test the null hypothesis of the proportion of women who
said yes to a new shoe model. H 0 : p  .25; H 1 : p  .25; . What value of the sample
proportion is required to reject the null hypothesis with alpha = .03?
a. n = 400. Reject H 0 if pˆ  pˆ c = p0 + z p0 (1 − p0 ) / n = .25 +1.88
(.25)(1 − .25) / 400 = .2907
if pˆ  pˆ c = p0 + z p0 (1 − p0 ) / n = .25 +1.88
(.25)(1 − .25) / 225 = .30427
if pˆ  pˆ c = p0 + z p0 (1 − p0 ) / n = .25 +1.88
(.25)(1 − .25) / 625 = .28256

d. n = 900. Reject H 0
if pˆ  pˆ c = p0 + z p0 (1 − p0 ) / n = .25 +1.88
(.25)(1 − .25) / 900 = .2771
9.29 A random sample is obtained to test the null hypothesis of the proportion of women who
would purchase an existing shoe model. H 0 : p  .25; H 1 : p  .25; . What value of the
sample proportion is required to reject the null hypothesis with alpha = .05?
a. n = 400. Reject H 0 if pˆ  pˆ c = p0 − z p0 (1 − p0 ) / n = .25 – 1.645
(.25)(1 − .25) / 400 = .2144
if pˆ  pˆ c = p0 − z p0 (1 − p0 ) / n = .25 – 1.645
(.25)(1 − .25) / 225 = .2025
if pˆ  pˆ c = p0 − z p0 (1 − p0 ) / n = .25 – 1.645
(.25)(1 − .25) / 625 = .2215
d. n = 900. Reject H 0
if pˆ  pˆ c = p0 − z p0 (1 − p0 ) / n = .25 – 1.645
(.25)(1 − .25) / 900 = .22626
9.30 H : p  .25; H : p  .25;

0 1
.2908 − .25
z= = 1.79, p-value = 1 – FZ(1.79) = 1 - .9633 = .0367
(.25)(.75) / 361
Therefore, reject H 0 at alpha greater than 3.67%
9.31 H : p  .25; H : p  .25; reject H

0 1 0
if z.05 < -1.645
.173 − .25
z= = -5.62, p-value = 1 – FZ(5.62) = 1 – 1.0000 = .0000
(.25)(.75) / 998
Therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% alpha level
9.32 H : p = .5; H : p  .5;

0 1
.45 − .5
z= = -1.26, p-value = 2[1 – FZ(1.26)] = 2[1 – .8962] = .2076
(.5)(.5) /160
The probability of finding a random sample with a sample proportion this far or further
from .5 if the null hypothesis is really true is .2076

9.33 H : p = .5; H : p  .5; reject H

0 1 0
if |z.10/2 | > 1.645
.5226 − .5
z= = .64, p-value = 2[1 – FZ(.64)] = 2[1 – .7389] = .5222
(.5)(.5) /199
Therefore, do not reject H 0 at the 10% alpha level. The p-value shows the probability
of finding a random sample with a sample proportion this far or farther from .5 if the null
hypothesis is really true is .5222
9.34 H : p = .5; H : p  .5;

0 1
.56 − .5
z= = .85, p-value = 1 – FZ(.85) = 1 – .8023 = .1977
(.5)(.5) / 50
Therefore, reject H 0 at alpha levels in excess of 19.77%
9.35 H : p  .75; H : p  .75;
0 1
.686 − .75
z= = -1.94, p-value = 1 – FZ(1.94) = 1 – .9738 = .0262
(.25)(.75) /172
9.36 H : p  .75; H : p  .75;

0 1
.6931 − .75
z= = -1.87, p-value = 1 – FZ(1.87) = 1 – .9693 = .0307
(.75)(.25) / 202
9.37 Compute the probability of Type II error and the power for the following
 5.041 − 5.10 
a.  = 5.10 .  = P( x  xc |  =  * = P( x  5.041|  * = 5.10) = P  z  
 .1 16 
= P(z ≤ -2.36) = .0091. Power = 1 – .0091 = .9909
 5.041 − 5.03 
b.  = 5.03 .  = P( x  xc |  =  * = P( x  5.041|  * = 5.03) = P  z  
 .1 16 
= P(z ≤ .44) = .6700. Power = 1 – .6700 = .3300
 5.041 − 5.15 
c.  = 5.15 .  = P( x  xc |  =  * = P( x  5.041|  * = 5.15) = P  z  
 .1 16 
= P(z ≤ -4.36) = .0000. Power = 1 – .0000 = 1.0000
 5.041 − 5.07 
d.  = 5.07 .  = P( x  xc |  =  * = P( x  5.041|  * = 5.07) = P  z  
 .1 16 
= P(z ≤ -1.16) = .1230 . Power = 1 – .1230 = .8770

9.38 What is the probability of Type II error if the actual proportion is

 
 
 .46 − p *
.54 − p *
a. P = .52 .  = P (.46  pˆ  .54 | p = p ) = P
*
z
 p* (1 − p* ) p* (1 − p* ) 
 
 n n 
 
 .46 − .52 .54 − .52 
= P z  = P(-2.94 ≤ z ≤ .98) = .4984 + .3365 = .8349
 .52(1 − .52) .52(1 − .52) 
 600 600 
 
 .46 − .58 .54 − .58 
b. P = .58 .  = P (.46  pˆ  .54 | p = p* ) = P  z 
 .58(1 − .58) .58(1 − .58) 
 600 600 
= P(-5.96 ≤ z ≤ -1.99) = .5000 – .4767 = .0233
 
 .46 − .53 .54 − .53 
c. P = .53 .  = P (.46  pˆ  .54 | p = p* ) = P  z 
 .53(1 − .53) .53(1 − .53) 
 600 600 
= P(-3.44 ≤ z ≤ .49) = .4997 + .1879 = .6876
 
 .46 − .48 .54 − .48 
d. P = .48 .  = P (.46  pˆ  .54 | p = p* ) = P  z 
 .48(1 − .48) .48(1 − .48) 
 600 600 
= P(-.98 ≤ z ≤ 2.94) = .3365 + .4984 = .8349
 
 .46 − .43 .54 − .43 
e. P = .43 .  = P (.46  ˆ
p  .54 | p = p *
) = P   z  
 .43(1 − .43) .43(1 − .43) 
 600 600 
= P(1.48 ≤ z ≤5.44) = .5000 – .4306 = .0694

X − 50
9.39 a. H 0
is rejected when
3 9
< -1.28 or when X < 48.2. Given an X = 48.2 hours,
the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.

48.2 − 49
b. The power of the test = 1 -  = 1 – P(Z > ) = 1 – P(Z > -.80) = .2119
3 9
X −3
9.40 a. H 0
is rejected when
.4 64
> 1.645 or when X > 3.082. Since the sample mean is
3.07% which is less than the critical value, the decision is do not reject the null
hypothesis.
3.082 − 3.1
b. The  = P(Z < ) = 1 – FZ(.36) = .3594. Power of the test = 1 -  = .6406
.4 64
X −4
9.41 a. H 0
is rejected when –2.5758 < < 2.5758 or when 3.914 < X < 4.086.
1.32 1562
Since the sample mean was 4.27, which is greater than the upper critical value, the
decision is to reject the null hypothesis.
3.914 − 3.95 4.086 − 3.95
b.  = P( <Z< ) = P(-1.08 > Z > 4.07) = .8599
1.32 1562 1.32 1562
p − .5
9.42 H 0
is rejected when
.25 / 802
< -1.28 or when p < .477
.477 − .45
The power of the test = 1 -  = 1 – P(Z > ) = 1-P(Z > 1.54) = .9382
(.45)(.55) / 802
p − .25
9.43 a. H 0
is rejected when
(.25)(.75) / 998
< -1.645 or when p < .2275. Since the
sample proportion is .173 which is less than the critical value, the decision is to reject the
null hypothesis.
.2275 − .2
b. The power of the test = 1 -  = 1 – P(Z > ) = 1-P(Z > 2.17) = .9850
(.2)(.8) / 998

p − .5
9.44 a. H 0
is rejected when –1.645 > > 1.645 or when .442 > p > .558. Since
.25 /199
the sample proportion is .5226 which is within the critical values. The decision is that there
is insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
.442 − .6 .558 − .6
b.  = P( < Z< ) = 1-P(-4.55 < Z < -1.21) = .1131
(.6)(.4) /199 (.6)(.4) /199
30.8 − 32
9.45 a.  = P( Z  ) = P(Z < -2.4) = 0.0082
3 36
30.8 − 32
b.  = P( Z  ) = P(Z < -1.2) =0.1151.
3 9
The larger probability of a Type I error is due to the smaller sample size which increases
the standard error of the mean.
30.8 − 31
c.  = P( Z  ) = P(Z > -.4) =0.6554
3 36
.14 − .09
9.46 a.  = P( Z  ) = P(Z > 1.75 ) = 0.0401
(.09)(.91) /100
.14 − .09
b.  = P( Z  ) = P(Z > 3.49 ) = 0.0002 . The smaller probability of a
(.09)(.91) / 400
Type I error is due to the larger sample size which lowers the standard error of the mean.

.14 − .20
c.  = P( Z  ) = P(Z < -1.5) = .0668
(.2)(.8) /100
d. i) lower, ii) higher
(n − 1) s 2 24(165)
H 0 :   100; H 1 :   100;  = =
2 2 2
9.47 a. = 39.6,
 2
100
 2
(24,.025) = 39.36,  2
(24,.010) = 42.98
Therefore, reject H 0
at the 2.5% level but not at the 1% level of significance.
(n − 1) s 2 28(165)
H 0 :   100; H 1 :   100;  = =
2 2 2
b. = 46.2,
 2
100
 2
(28,.025) = 44.46,  2
(28,.010) = 48.28
at the 2.5% level but not at the 1% level of significance.
(n − 1) s 2 24(159)
c. H :   100; H 1 :   100;  =
2 2 2
= = 38.16,
0
 2
100
 2
(24,.050) = 36.42,  2
(24,.025) = 39.36
at the 5% level but not at the 2.5% level of significance.
(n − 1) s 2 37(67)
H 0 :   100; H 1 :   100;  = =
2 2 2
d. = 24.79,
 2
100
 2
(37,.100) = 48.36,  2
(37,.05) = 52.19
Therefore, do not reject H 0
at any common level of significance.

9.48 H 0
:  2  500; H 1 :  2  500; reject H 0
if  2 (7,.10) > 12.02
(n − 1) s 2 7(933.982)
2 = = = 13.0757, Therefore, reject H at the 10% level
 2
500 0
9.49 a. s2 = 5.1556
b. H 0 :  2  2.25; H 1 :  2  2.25; reject H 0
if  2 (9,.05) > 16.92
9(5.1556)
2 = = 20.6224. Reject H 0
at the 5% level
2.25
9.50 H 0
:  2 = 300; H 1 :  2  300;
29(480)
2 = = 46.4, p-value = .0214. Reject H 0
at the 5% level
300
9.51 The hypothesis test assumes that the population values are normally distributed
H 0 :  = 2.0; H 1 :   2.0; reject H 0 if  (19,.05) > 30.14
2
19(2.36) 2
2 = = 26.4556. Do not reject H at the 5% level
(2) 2 0
9.52 H 0
:   18.2; H 1 :   18.2;
24(15.3) 2
 =
2
= 16.961.
(18.2) 2
Do not reject H 0 at the 10% level since  2 >15.66 =  2 (24,.10)
9.53 a. The null hypothesis is the statement that is assumed to be true unless there is sufficient
evidence to suggest that the null hypothesis can be rejected. The alternative
hypothesis is the statement that will be accepted if there is sufficient evidence to
reject the null hypothesis
b. A simple hypothesis assumes a specific value for the population parameter that is
being tested. A composite hypothesis assumes a range of values for the population
parameter.
c. One sided alternatives can be either a one-tailed upper (> greater than) or a one-tailed
lower (< less than) statement about the population parameter. Two sided alternatives
are made up of both greater than or less than statements and are written as ( not
equal to).
d. A Type I error is falsely rejecting the null hypothesis. To make a Type I error, the
truth must be that the null hypothesis is really true and yet you conclude to reject the
null and accept the alternative. A Type II error is falsely not rejecting the null
hypothesis when in fact the null hypothesis is false. To make a Type II error, the null
hypothesis must be false (the alternative is true) and yet you conclude to not reject the
null hypothesis.
e. Significance level is the chosen level of significance that establishes the probability of
a making a Type I error. This is represented by alpha. The power of the test, 1 – β, is

the ability of the hypothesis test to identify correctly a false null hypothesis and reject
it.
9.54 The p-value indicates the likelihood of getting the sample result at least as far away from
the hypothesized value as the one that was found, assuming that the distribution is really
centered on the null hypothesis. The smaller the p-value, the stronger the evidence against
the null hypothesis.
9.55 a. X = 45, s = 10.5409

b. H :
0
= 40; H 1 :   40; reject H 0
if t(9,.05) > 1.833
45 − 40
t= = 1.50, therefore, do not reject H 0
at the 5% level
10.5409 10
9.56 a. False. The significance level is the probability of making a Type I error – falsely
rejecting the null hypothesis when in fact the null is true.
b. True
c. True
d. False. The power of the test is the ability of the test to correctly reject a false null
hypothesis.
e. False. The rejection region is farther away from the hypothesized value at the 1%
level than it is at the 5% level. Therefore, it is still possible to reject at the 5% level
but not at the 1% level.
f. True
g. False. The p-value tells the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis.
9.57 a. X = 333 / 9 = 37; sx = 312 8 = 6.245

H : 0
 40; H 1 :   40; reject H 0
if t8,.05 < -1.86
37 − 40
t= = -1.44, therefore, do not reject H 0
at the 5% level
6.245 9

776 − 800
9.58 a.  = P( Z  ) = P(Z < -2) = .0228
120 100)
776 − 740
b.  = P( Z  ) = P(Z > 3) = .0014
120 100
c. i) smaller ii) smaller
d. i) smaller ii) larger
9.59 a. H : p  .25; H : p  .25; reject H

0 1 0
if z.05 < -1.645
.215 − .25
z= = -1.90, therefore, reject H 0 at the 5% level
(.25)(.75) / 545
p − .25
b. H 0 is rejected when < -1.645 or when p < .2195
(.25)(.75) / 545
.2195 − .2
i) power = 1 – P(Z > ) = 1 – P(Z > 1.14) = .8729
(.2)(.8) / 545
.2195 − .25
ii) power = 1 – P(Z > ) = 1 – P(Z > -1.64) = .0505
(.25)(.75) / 545
.2195 − .3
iii) power = 1 – P(Z > ) = 1 – P(Z > -4.1) = .0000
(.3)(.7) / 545
9.60 H : p = .5; H : p  .5;

0 1
.4808 − .5
z= = -.39, p-value = 2[1-FZ(.39)] = 2[1-.6517] = .6966
(.5)(.5) /104
Therefore, reject H 0 at levels in excess of 69.66%
9.61 H : p = .5; H : p  .5;

0 1
.576 − .5
z= = 1.51, p-value = 1-FZ(1.51) = 1-.9345 = .0655
(.5)(.5) / 99
9.62 H : p  .25; H : p  .25; reject H

0 1 0
if z.05 > 1.645
.3333 − .25
z= = 2.356, therefore, reject H 0
at the 5% level
(.25)(.75) /150
9.63 H : p  .2; H : p  .2;

0 1
.2746 − .2
z= = 2.22, p-value = 1-FZ(2.22) = 1-.9868 = .0132
(.2)(.8) /142
9.64 Cost Model where W = Total Cost: W = 1,000 + 5X

W = 1, 000 + 5(400) = 3, 000

125
 2W = (5) 2 (625) = 15, 625,  W = 125,  W = = 25
25
H 0
: W  3000; H 1: W  3000;
Using the test statistic criteria: (3050 – 3000)/25 = 2.00 which yields a p-value of .0228,
therefore, reject H 0 at the .05 level.
Using the sample statistic criteria: X crit = 3, 000 + (25)(1.645) = 3041.1 , X calc = 3, 050 ,
since X calc = 3, 050 > X crit = 3041.1 , therefore, reject H 0
at the .05 level.
9.65 H 0
:   39, H 1 :   39
40 − 39
t40 = = 1.19 . Probability of X = 40 given that  is 39 is .1170. Therefore, the
50
71
Vice President’s claim is not very strong.
9.66 Per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables

x = 172.79; s = 19.254
x −
H 0 :   170; H 1 :   170; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,
172.79 − 170
= 8.075 Since 8.075 is greater than the critical value of 1.645,
19.254 3108
there is sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
Per capita consumption of snack foods

x = 114.11; s = 9.541
x − 0
H : 0
 114; H 1 :   114; . Reject if
s n
 tn −1,
114.11 − 114
= 0.66. Since 0.66 is greater than the critical value of -1.645, there is no
9.541 3108
sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
Per capita consumption of soft drinks

x = 66.81; s = 7.5
x − 0
H : 0
 65; H 1 :   65; . Reject if
s n
 tn −1,
66.81 − 65
= 13.487. Since 13.487 is greater than the critical value of -1.645,
7.5 3108
there is no sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Per capita consumption of meat

x = 70.38; s = 12.694
x − 0
H : 0
 70; H 1 :   70; . Reject if
s n
 tn −1,
70.38 − 70
= 1.69. Since 1.69 is greater than the critical value of 1.645,
12.694 3108
9.67 Obesity rates of adults in the U.S. population.

x = 28.29; s = 3.625
x −
H 0 :   28; H 1 :   28; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,
28.29 − 28
3.625 3140
Low-income preschool obesity rate in the U.S. population

x = 14.19; s = 3.716
x −
H 0 :   13; H 1 :   13; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,
14.19 − 13
3.716 2691
9.68 H 0
:   40, H 1 :   40; X = 49.73  42.86 reject H 0
One-Sample T: Salmon Weight
Test of mu = 40 vs mu > 40
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean

Salmon Weigh 39 49.73 10.60 1.70
Variable 95.0% Lower Bound T P

Salmon Weigh 46.86 5.73 0.000
At the .05 level of significance we have strong enough evidence to reject Ho that the true
mean weight of salmon is no different than 40 in favor of Ha that the true mean weight is
significantly greater than 40.
X crit = Ho + tcrit ( S x ) : 40 + 1.686(1.70) = 42.8662

Population mean for  = .50 (power=.50): tcrit = 0.0: 42.8662 + 0.0(1.70) = 42.8662
Population mean for  = .25 (power=.75): tcrit = .681: 42.8662 + .681(1.70) = 44.0239

Power curve
For beta = .50 .25 .10 and .05
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Power
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
40 41 42 43 44 45 46
PopMean
9.69 a. H : 0
= 1.6; H 1 :   1.6; reject H 0
if |z.05|> 1.645
1.615 − 1.6
z= = 1.20, p-value =2[1-FZ(1.2)]= 0.2302.
.05 16
Do not reject H 0 at the 10% level
b. H 0
:  = .05; H 1 :   .05; reject H 0
if  2 (15,.10)  22.31
15(.086) 2
2 = = 44.376. Reject H at the 10% level
(.05) 2 0
9.70 a. Assume that the population is normally distributed

One-Sample T: Grams:
Test of mu = 5 vs mu not = 5
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean
Grams:11-34 12 4.9725 0.0936 0.0270
Variable 95.0% CI T P
Grams:11-34 ( 4.9130, 5.0320) -1.02 0.331
x = 4.9725; s = .0936 , H :0

= 5; H 1 :   5; reject H 0
if |t(11, .025| > 2.201
4.9725 − 5
t= = -1.018. Do not reject H 0
at the 5% level
.0936 12

b. Assume that the population is normally distributed

H 0 :  = .025; H 1 :   .025; reject H 0 if  (11,.05)  19.68
2
11(.0936) 2
2 = = 154.19. Therefore, reject H at the 5% level
(.025) 2 0
9.71 x = 333 / 9 = 37; s = 312000 8 = 197.484

H 0
:   6; H 1 :   6; reject H 0
if  2 (8,.10)  13.36
8(197.484)2
2 = = 8666.651 . reject H at the 10% level
(6)2 0
9.72 Obesity rates of adults in the U.S. population.

x = 28.29; s = 3.625
x −
H 0 :   28; H 1 :   28; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,
28.29 − 28
3.625 3140
Low-income preschool obesity rate in the U.S. population

x = 14.19; s = 3.716
x −
H 0 :   13; H 1 :   13; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,
14.19 − 13
3.716 2691
9.73 Obesity rates of adults in California

x = 23.34; s = 3.224
x − 0
H :
0
 28; H 1 :   28; . Reject if
s n
 tn −1,
23.34 − 28
= -11.00. Since -11.00 is smaller than the critical value of 1.645,
3.224 58
Low-income preschool obesity rate in California

x = 16.18; s = 2.535
x −
H 0 :   13; H 1 :   13; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,

16.18 − 13
2.535 57
Obesity rates of adults in Michigan.

x = 29.49; s = 1.397
x − 0
H :0
 28; H 1 :   28; . Reject if
s n
 tn −1,
29.49 − 28
1.397 83
Low-income preschool obesity rate in Michigan

x = 14.02; s = 2.533
x −
H 0 :   13; H 1 :   13; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,
14.02 − 13
2.533 82
Obesity rates of adults in Minnesota.

x = 27.24; s = 0.907
x − 0
H : 0
 28; H 1 :   28; . Reject if
s n
 tn −1,
27.24 − 28
0.907 87
Low-income preschool obesity rate in Minnesota

x = 12.51; s = 2.919
x −
H 0 :   13; H 1 :   13; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,
12.51 − 13
2.919 87
Obesity rates of adults in Florida.

x = 26.82; s = 4.054
x − 0
H : 0
 28; H 1 :   28; . Reject if
s n
 tn −1,

26.82 − 28
4.054 67
Low-income preschool obesity rate in Florida

x = 12.51; s = 2.919
x −
H 0 :   13; H 1 :   13; . Reject if s n0  tn−1,
13.53 − 13
= 0.993. Since 0.993 is smaller than the critical value of 1.645,
4.338 66
9.74 Mean weights of Men in the first interview

x = 27.98; s = 5.468
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
27.98 − 30
= -16.985. Since -16.985 is smaller than the critical value of -1.645,
5.468 2108
Mean weights of Men in the second interview

x = 28.07; s = 5.447
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
28.07 − 30
5.447 1925
There is no difference in the results obtained from the first and second
Interviews for men.
Mean weights of Women in the first interview

x = 28.93; s = 7.022
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
28.93 − 30
7.022 2274
Mean weights of Women in the second interview

x = 29.02; s = 7.071

x − 0
H : 0
 30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if
s n
 −tn −1,
29.02 − 30
7.071 2132
Interviews for women.
9.75 Mean weights of Immigrants in the first interview

x = 27.63; s = 5.272
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
27.63 − 30
5.272 870
Mean weights of Immigrants in the second interview

x = 27.75; s = 5.317
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
27.75 − 30
5.317 787
Interviews for immigrants
9.76 Mean weights of White people in the first interview

x = 27.85; s = 6.065
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
27.85 − 30
6.065 2357

Mean weights of White people in the second interview

x = 27.92; s = 6.117
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
27.92 − 30
6.117 2213
Interviews for White people.
9.77 Mean weights of Hispanic people in the first interview

x = 28.83; s = 5.566
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
28.83 − 30
5.566 999
Mean weights of Hispanic people in the second interview

x = 28.90; s = 5.603
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
28.90 − 30
5.603 934
Interviews for Hispanic people.
9.78 Mean weights of people who have been diagnosed with high blood pressure in the
first interview
x = 30.15; s = 6.613
x −
H 0 :   30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if s n0  −tn−1,
30.15 − 30
6.613 1522
Mean weights of people who have been diagnosed with high blood pressure in
the second interview
x = 30.29; s = 6.651

x − 0
H : 0
 30; H 1 :   30; . Reject if
s n
 −tn −1,
30.29 − 30
6.651 1420
Interviews for people diagnosed with high blood pressure.

Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
upon. Geo. W. Johnson was chosen Governor. Legislative Council
were: Willis B. Machen, John W. Crockett, James P. Bates, Jas. S.
Chrisman, Phil. B. Thompson, J. P. Burnside, H. W. Bruce, J. W.
Moore, E. M. Bruce, Geo. B. Hodge.
MARYLAND.
Nov. 27th, 1860. Gov. Hicks declined to call a special session of the
Legislature, in response to a request for such convening from
Thomas G. Pratt, Sprigg Harwood, J. S. Franklin, N. H. Green,
Llewellyn Boyle, and J. Pinkney.
December 19th. Gov. Hicks replied to A. H. Handy, Commissioner
from Mississippi, declining to accept the programme of Secession.
20th. Wm. H. Collins, Esq., of Baltimore, issued an address to the
people, in favor of the Union, and in March a second address.
31st. The “Clipper” denied the existence of an organization in
Maryland to prevent the inauguration of President Lincoln.
A. H. Handy of Mississippi addressed citizens of Baltimore in favor
of disunion.
January 3d, 1861. Henry Winter Davis issued an address in favor
of the Union.
3d. Numerous Union meetings in various part of the State. Gov.
Hicks issued an address to the people against secession.
11th. John C. Legrand in a letter to Hon. Reverdy Johnson replied
to the Union speech of the latter.
14th. James Carroll, former Democratic candidate for Governor,
announced his desire to go with the seceding States.
16th. Wm. A. Spencer, in a letter to Walter S. Cox, Esq., declared
against the right of Secession but for a Convention.
16. Marshal Kane, in a letter to Mayor Berrett, denied that any
organization exists to prevent the inauguration of President Lincoln,
and said that the President elect would need no armed escort in
passing through or sojourning within the limits of Baltimore and
Maryland.
24th. Coleman Yellott declared for a Convention.
30th. Messrs. John B. Brooke, President of the Senate, and E. G.
Kilbourn, Speaker of the House of Delegates, asked the Governor to
convene the Legislature in response to public meetings. Senator
Kennedy published his opinion that Maryland must go with Virginia.
February 18th. State Conference Convention held, and insisted
upon a meeting of the Legislature. At a meeting in Howard Co.,
which Speaker E. G. Kilbourn addressed, a resolution was adopted
that “immediate steps ought to be taken for the establishment of a
Southern Confederacy, by consultation and co-operation with such
other Southern and Slave States as may be ready therefor.”
April 21st. Gov. Hicks wrote to Gen. Butler, advising that he do not
land his troops at Annapolis. Butler replied that he intended to land
there and march thence to Washington. Gov. Hicks protested against
this and also against his having taken forcible possession of the
Annapolis and Elkridge railroad.
24th. A special election of ten delegates to the Legislature took
place at Baltimore. The total vote cast in all the wards was 9,249. The
total vote cast at the Presidential election in November, 1860, was
30,148.
26th. Legislature reassembled at Frederick, Annapolis being
occupied by Union troops.
29th. Gov. Hicks sent a message to the Legislature communicating
to them the correspondence between himself and Gen. Butler and
the Secretary of War relative to the landing of troops at Annapolis.
The House of Delegates voted against Secession, 53 to 13. Senate
unanimously.
May 2d. The Committee on Federal Relations, “in view of the
seizure of the railroads by the General Government and the erection
of fortifications,” presented resolutions appointing Commissioners to
the President to ascertain whether any becoming arrangements with
the General Government are practicable, for the maintenance of the
peace and honor of the State and the security of its inhabitants. The
report was adopted, and Otho Scott, Robt. M. McLane, and Wm. J.
Ross were appointed such Commissioners.
Mr. Yellott in the Senate introduced a bill to appoint a Board of
Public Safety. The powers given to the Board included the
expenditure of the two millions of dollars proposed by Mr. Brune for
the defence of the State, and the entire control of the military,
including the removal and appointment of commissioned officers. It
was ordered to a second reading by a vote of 14 to 8. The Board was
to consist of Ezekiel F. Chambers, Enoch Louis Lowe, John V. L.
MacMahon, Thomas G. Pratt, Walter Mitchell, and Thomas Winans.
Gov. Hicks was made ex-officio a member of the Board. This
measure was strongly pressed by the Disunionists for a long time,
but they were finally compelled to give way, and the bill never
passed.
6th. The Commissioners reported the result of their interview with
the President, and expressed the opinion that some modification of
the course of the General Government towards Maryland ought to be
expected.
10th. The House of Delegates passed a series of resolutions
reported by the Committee on Federal Relations by a vote of 43 to 12.
The resolutions declare that Maryland protests against the war, and
does earnestly beseech and implore the President of the United
States to make peace with the “Confederate” States; also, that “the
State of Maryland desires the peaceful and immediate recognition of
the independence of the Confederate States.” Those who voted in the
negative are Messrs. Medders, Lawson, Keene, Routzahn, Naill,
Wilson of Harford, Bayless, McCoy, Fiery, Stake, McCleary, and
Gorsuch.
13th. Both Houses adopted a resolution providing for a committee
of eight members, (four from each House) to visit the President of
the United States and the President of the Southern Confederacy.
The committee to visit President Davis were instructed to convey the
assurance that Maryland sympathizes with the Confederate States,
and that the people of Maryland are enlisted with their whole hearts
on the side of reconciliation and peace.
June 11th. Messrs. McKaig, Yellott and Harding, Commissioners to
visit President Davis, presented their report; accompanying which is
a letter from Jefferson Davis, expressing his gratification to hear that
the State of Maryland was in sympathy with themselves, was enlisted
on the side of peace and reconciliation, and avowing his perfect
willingness for a cessation of hostilities, and a readiness to receive
any proposition for peace from the United States Government.
20th. The House of Delegates, and June 22d, the Senate adopted
resolutions unqualifiedly protesting against the arrest of Ross
Winans and sundry other citizens of Maryland, as an “oppressive and
tyrannical assertion and exercise of military jurisdiction within the
limits of Maryland, over the persons and property of her citizens, by
the Government of the United States.”
MISSOURI.
January 15th, 1861. Senate passed Convention Bill—yeas 31, nays

2. Passed House also.
February 28th. Convention met; motion to go into secret session,
defeated. A resolution requiring members to take an oath to support
the Constitution of the United States and the State of Missouri, was
lost—65 against 30.
March 4. Resolution passed, 64 yeas, 35 nays, appointing
committee to notify Mr. Glenn, Commissioner of Georgia, that the
Convention was ready to hear any communication from his State.
Mr. Glenn was introduced, read Georgia’s articles of secession, and
made a speech urging Missouri to join her.
5th. Resolutions were read, ordering that the protest of St. Louis
against coercion be reduced to writing, and a copy sent to the
President of the United States; also, resolutions were adopted
informing the Commissioner from Georgia that Missouri dissented
from the position taken by that State, and refused to share the
honors of secession with her.
6th. Resolutions were offered by several members and referred,
calling a Convention of the Southern States which have not seceded,
to meet at Nashville, April 15th, providing for such amendments to
the Constitution of the United States as shall secure to all the States
equal rights in the Union, and declaring strongly against secession.
9th. The Committee on Federal Relations reported a series of
resolutions, setting forth that at present there is no adequate cause to
impel Missouri to leave the Union, but that on the contrary she will
labor for such an adjustment of existing troubles as will secure peace
and the rights and equality of all the States; that the people of
Missouri regard the amendments to the Constitution proposed by
Mr. Crittenden, with their extension to territory hereafter to be
required, a basis of adjustment which would forever remove all
difficulties; and that it is expedient for the Legislature to call a
Convention for proposing amendments to the Constitution.
The Senate passed resolutions that their Senators be instructed,
and their Representatives requested, to oppose the passage of all acts
granting supplies of men and money to coerce the seceding States
into submission or subjugation; and that, should such acts be passed
by Congress, their Senators be instructed, and their Representatives
requested, to retire from the halls of Congress.
16th. An amendment of the fifth resolution of the majority report
of the Committee on Federal Relations, asserting that Missouri
would never countenance nor aid a seceding State in making war
upon the General Government, nor provide men and money for the
purpose of aiding the General Government to coerce a seceding
State, was voted down.
27th. The following resolution was passed by a vote in the House of
62 against 42:—
Resolved, That it is inexpedient for the General Assembly to take
any steps for calling a National Convention to propose amendments
to the Constitution, as recommended by the State Convention.
July 22d. The Convention reassembled.
23d. Resolution passed, by a vote of 65 to 21, declaring the office of
President, held by General Sterling Price at the last session of the
Convention, vacant. A committee of seven were appointed to report
what action they deem it advisable to take in the dislocated condition
of the State.
25th. The committee presented their report. It alludes at length to
the present unparalleled condition of things, the reckless course of
the recent Government, and flight of the Governor and other State
officers from the capitol. It declares the offices of Governor,
Lieutenant-Governor, and Secretary of State vacant, and provides
that their vacancies shall be filled by the Convention, the officers so
appointed to hold their positions till August, 1862, at which time it
provides for a special election by the people. It repeals the ninth
section of the sixth article of the Constitution, and provides that the
Supreme Court of the State shall consist of seven members; and that
four members, in addition to the three now comprising the Court,
shall be appointed by the Governor chosen by this Convention to
hold office till 1862, when the people shall decide whether the change
shall be permanent. It abolishes the State Legislature, and ordains
that in case, before the 1st of August, 1862, the Governor chosen by
this Convention shall consider the public exigencies demand, he shall
order a special election for the members of the State Legislature. It
recommends the passage of an ordinance repealing the following
bills, passed by the Legislature in secret session, in May last: The
military fund bill, the bill to suspend the distribution of the school
fund, and the bill for cultivating friendly relations with the Indian
tribes. It repeals the bill authorizing the appointment of one major-
general of the Missouri militia, and revives the militia law of 1859.
A resolution was passed that a committee of seven be appointed by
the President to prepare an address to the people of the State of
Missouri.
November 26th. Jefferson Davis transmitted to the “Confederate”
Congress a message concerning the secession of Missouri. It was
accompanied by a letter from Governor Jackson, and also by an act
dissolving the union with the United States, and an act ratifying the
Constitution of the Provisional Government of the Confederate
States; also, the Convention between the Commissioners of Missouri
and the Commissioners of the Confederate States. Congress
unanimously ratified the Convention entered into between the Hon.
R. M. T. Hunter for the rebel Government and the Commissioners
for Missouri.
Inter-State Commissioners.
The seceding States, as part of their plan of operation, appointed

Commissioners to visit other slaveholding States. They were as
follows, as announced in the newspapers:
South Carolina.
To Alabama, A. P. Calhoun.
To Georgia, James L. Orr, Ex-M. C.
To Florida, L. W. Spratt.
To Mississippi, M. L. Bonham, Ex-M. C.
To Louisiana, J. L. Manning.
To Arkansas, A. C. Spain.
To Texas, J. B. Kershaw.
To Virginia, John S. Preston.
Alabama.
To North Carolina, Isham W. Garrett.

To Mississippi, E. W. Pettus.
To South Carolina, J. A. Elmore.
To Maryland, A. F. Hopkins.
To Virginia, Frank Gilmer.
To Tennessee, L. Pope Walker.
To Kentucky, Stephen F. Hale.
To Arkansas, John Anthony Winston.
Georgia.
To Missouri, Luther J. Glenn.

To Virginia, Henry L. Benning.
Mississippi.
To South Carolina, C. E. Hooker.

To Alabama, Jos. W. Matthews, Ex-Gov.
To Georgia, William L. Harris.
To Louisiana, Wirt Adams.
To Texas, H. H. Miller.
To Arkansas, George R. Fall.
To Florida, E. M. Yerger.
To Tennessee, T. J. Wharton, Att’y-Gen.
To Kentucky, W. S. Featherstone, Ex-M. C.
To North Carolina. Jacob Thompson, Ex-M. C.
To Virginia, Fulton Anderson.
To Maryland, A. H. Handy, Judge.
To Delaware, Henry Dickinson.
To Missouri, —— Russell.
Southern Congress.
This body, composed of Deputies elected by the Conventions of the

Seceding States, met at Montgomery, Alabama, February 4th, 1861,
to organize a Southern Confederacy. Each State had a representation
equal to the number of members of the Thirty-sixth Congress. The
members were:
South Carolina.
Robert W. Barnwell, Ex-U. S. Senator.

R. Barnwell Rhett, „ „ „
James Chestnut, jr., „ „ „
Lawrence M. Keitt, Ex-M. C.
William W. Boyce, „ „
Wm. Porcher Miles, „ „
C. G. Memminger.
Thomas J. Withers.
Alabama.
W. P. Chilton.
Stephen F. Hale.
David P. Lewis.
Thomas Fearn.
Richard W. Walker.
Robert H. Smith.
Colin J. McRae.
John Gill Shorter.
J. L. M. Curry, Ex-M. C.
Florida.
J. Patten Anderson, Ex-Delegate from Washington Territory.

Jackson Morton, Ex-U. S. Senator.
James Powers.
Mississippi.
W. S. Wilson.
Wiley P. Harris, Ex-M. C.
James T. Harrison.
Walter Brooke, Ex-U. S. Senator.
William S. Barry, Ex-M. C.
A. M. Clayton.
Georgia.
Robert Toombs, Ex-U. S. Senator.

Howell Cobb, Ex-M. C.
Martin J. Crawford, „ „
Augustus R. Wright, „ „
Augustus H. Keenan.
Benjamin H. Hill.
Francis S. Bartow.
E. A. Nisbet.
Thomas R. R. Cobb.
Alexander H. Stephens, Ex-M. C.
Louisiana.
Duncan F. Kenner.
Charles M. Conrad, Ex-U. S. Senator.
Henry Marshall.
John Perkins, jr.
G. E. Sparrow.
E. De Clouet.
Texas.
(Admitted March 2d, 1861.)
Louis T. Wigfall, Ex-U. S. Senator.

John Hemphill, „ „ „
John H. Reagan, Ex-M. C.
T. N. Waul.
John Gregg.
W. S. Oldham.
W. B. Ochiltree.
Proceedings of the Southern Congress.
February 4th, 1861. Howell Cobb of Georgia elected President,

Johnson J. Hooper of Alabama, Secretary. Mr. Cobb announced that
secession “is now a fixed and irrevocable fact, and the separation is
perfect, complete and perpetual.”
6th. David L. Swain, M. W. Ransom, and John L. Bridgers, were
admitted as Commissioners from North Carolina, under resolutions
of the General Assembly of that State, passed January 29th, 1861, “to
effect an honorable and amicable adjustment of all the difficulties
that disturb the country, upon the basis of the Crittenden
resolutions, as modified by the Legislature of Virginia,” and to
consult with the delegates to the Southern Congress for their
“common peace, honor and safety.”
7th. Congress notified that the State of Alabama had placed
$500,000 at its disposal, as a loan to the provisional government of
the Confederacy of Seceding States.
8th. The Constitution of the Provisional Government adopted.[8]
9th. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, elected Provisional President
of the Confederate States of America, and Alexander H. Stephens, of
Georgia, Vice-President. The question of attacking Fort Sumter has
been referred to the Congress.
11th. Mr. Stephens announced his acceptance. Committee
appointed to prepare a permanent Constitution.
12th. The Congress assumed “charge of all questions and
difficulties now existing between the sovereign States of this
Confederacy and the Government of the United States, relating to the
occupation of forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom-houses, and all
other public establishments.” The resolution was directed to be
communicated to the Governors of the respective States of the
Confederacy.
15th. Official copy of the Texas Ordinance of Secession presented.
16th. President Davis arrived and received with salute, etc.
18th. President Davis inaugurated.
19th. Tariff law passed.
21st. Robert Toombs appointed Secretary of the State; C. G.
Memminger, Secretary of the Treasury; L. Pope Walker, of Alabama,
Secretary of War; Stephen R. Mallory, Secretary of the Navy; Judah
P. Benjamin, Attorney-General, and John H. Reagan, Postmaster-
General; Philip Clayton, of Georgia appointed Assistant Secretary of
the Treasury, and Wm. M. Browne, late of the Washington
Constitution, Assistant Secretary of State.
March 2d. The Texas Deputies received.
The Confederate States.
The Confederate States was the name of the government formed in

1861 by the seven States which first seceded. Belligerent rights were
accorded to it by the leading naval powers, but it was never
recognized as a government, notwithstanding the persevering efforts
of its agents near the principal courts. This result was mainly due to
the diplomacy of the federal Secretary of State, Wm. H. Seward, to
the proclamations of emancipation in 1862–3, which secured the
sympathy of the best elements of Great Britain and France for the
federal government, and the obstinate persistence of the federal
government in avoiding, as far as possible, any recognition of the
existence, even de facto, of a confederate government. The federal
generals in the field, in their communications with confederate
officers, did not hesitate, upon occasion, even to give “president”
Davis his official title, but no such embarrassing precedent was ever
admitted by the civil government of the United States. It at first
endeavored, until checked by active preparations for retaliation, to
treat the crews of confederate privateers as pirates; it avoided any
official communication with the confederate government, even when
compelled to exchange prisoners, confining its negotiations to the
confederate commissioners of exchange; and, by its persistent policy
in this direction, it succeeded, without any formal declaration, in
impressing upon foreign governments the belief that any recognition
of the confederate States as a separate people would be actively
resented by the government of the United States as an act of
excessive unfriendliness. The federal courts have steadily held the
same ground, that “the confederate states was an unlawful
assemblage, without corporate power;” and that, though the separate
States were still in existence and were indestructible, their state
governments, while they chose to act as part of the confederate
States, did not exist, even de facto. Early in January, 1861, while only
South Carolina had actually seceded, though other Southern States
had called conventions to consider the question, the Senators of the
seven States farthest South practically assumed control of the whole
movement, and their energy and unswerving singleness of purpose,
aided by the telegraph, secured a rapidity of execution to which no
other very extensive conspiracy of history can afford a parallel. The
ordinance of secession was a negative instrument, purporting to
withdraw the state from the Union and to deny the authority of the
federal government over the people of the State; the cardinal object
of the senatorial group was to hurry the formation of a new national
government, as an organized political reality which would rally the
outright secessionists, claim the allegiance of the doubtful mass, and
coerce those who still remained recalcitrant. At the head of the
senatorial group, and of its executive committee, was Jefferson
Davis, Senator from Mississippi, and naturally the first official step
toward the formation of a new government came from the
Mississippi Legislature, where a committee reported, January 19th,
1861, resolutions in favor of a congress of delegates from the
seceding States to provide for a southern confederacy, and to
establish a provisional government, therefore. The other seceding
States at once accepted the proposal, through their State
conventions, which also appointed the delegates on the ground that
the people had intrusted the State conventions with unlimited
powers. The new government therefore began its existence without
any popular ratio of representation, and with only such popular
ratification as popular acquiescence gave. The provisional congress
met Feb. 4th, at Montgomery, Ala., with delegates from South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida and Mississippi. The
Texas delegates were not appointed until Feb. 14th. Feb. 8th, a
provisional constitution was adopted, being the constitution of the
United States, with some changes. Feb. 9th, Jefferson Davis, of
Mississippi, was unanimously chosen provisional president, and
Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, provisional vice-president, each
State having one vote, as in all other proceedings of the body. By acts
of Feb. 9th and 12th, the laws and revenue officers of the United
States were continued in the confederate States until changed. Feb.
18th, the president and vice-president were inaugurated. Feb. 20th–
26th, executive departments and a confederate regular army were
organized, and provision was made for borrowing money. March
11th, the permanent constitution was adopted by Congress.
The Internal legislation of the provisional congress was, at first,
mainly the adaptation of the civil service in the Southern States to
the uses of the new government. Wherever possible, judges,
postmasters, and civil as well as military and naval officers, who had
resigned from the service of the United States, were given an equal or
higher rank in the confederate service. Postmasters were directed to
make their final accounting to the United States, May 31st, thereafter
accounting to the Confederate States. April 29th, the provisional
congress, which had adjourned March 16th, reassembled at
Montgomery, having been convoked by President Davis in
consequence of President Lincoln’s preparations to enforce federal
authority in the South. Davis’ message announced that all the
seceding States had ratified the permanent constitution; that
Virginia, which had not yet seceded and entered into alliance with
the confederacy, and that other States, were expected to follow the
same plan. He concluded by declaring that “all we ask is to be let
alone.” May 6th, an act was passed recognizing the existence of war
with the United States. Congress adjourned May 22d, reconvened at
Richmond, Va., July 20th, and adjourned August 22d, until
November 18th. Its legislation had been mainly military and
financial. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, had
passed ordinances of secession, and been admitted to the
confederacy. (See the States named, and secession.) Although
Missouri and Kentucky had not seceded, delegates from these States
were admitted in December 1861. Nov. 6, 1861, at an election under
the permanent constitution, Davis and Stephens were again chosen
to their respective offices by a unanimous electoral vote. Feb. 18th,
1862, the provisional congress (of one house) gave way to the
permanent congress, and Davis and Stephens were inaugurated
February 22nd. The cabinet, with the successive Secretaries of each
department, was as follows, including both the provisional and
permanent cabinets:
State Department.—Robert Toombs, Georgia, February 21st, 1861;
R. M. T. Hunter, Virginia, July 30th, 1861; Judah P. Benjamin,
Louisiana, February 7th, 1862.
Treasury Department.—Charles G. Memminger, South Carolina,
February 21st, 1861, and March 22d, 1862; James L. Trenholm,
South Carolina, June 13th, 1864.
War Department.—L. Pope Walker, Mississippi, February 21st,
1861; Judah P. Benjamin, Louisiana, November 10th, 1861; James A.
Seddon, Virginia, March 22d, 1862; John C. Breckinridge, Kentucky,
February 15th, 1865.
Navy Department.—Stephen R. Mallory, Florida, March 4th, 1861,
and March 22d.
Attorney-General.—Judah P. Benjamin, Louisiana, February 21st,
1861; Thomas H. Watts, Alabama, September 10th, 1861, and March
22nd, 1862; George Davis, North Carolina, November 10th, 1863.
Postmaster-General.—Henry J. Elliot, Mississippi, February 21st,
1865; John H. Reagan, Texas, March 6th, 1861, and March 22d,
1862.
The provisional Congress held four sessions, as follows: 1.
February 4–March 16th, 1861; 2. April 29–May 22d, 1861; 3. July
20–August 22d, 1861; and 4. November 18th, 1861–February 17th,
1862.
Under the permanent Constitution there were two Congresses. The
first Congress held four sessions, as follows: 1. February 18–April
21st, 1862; 2. August 12–October 13th, 1862; 3. January 12–May 8th
1863; and 4. December 7, 1863–February 18th, 1864. The second
Congress held two sessions, as follows: 1. May 2–June 15th, 1864;
and 2. From November 7th, 1864, until the hasty and final
adjournment, March 18th, 1865.
In the first Congress members chosen by rump State conventions,
or by regiments in the confederate service, sat for districts in
Missouri and Kentucky, though these States had never seceded.
There were thus thirteen States in all represented at the close of the
first Congress; but, as the area of the Confederacy narrowed before
the advance of the Federal armies, the vacancies in the second
Congress became significantly more numerous. At its best estate the
Confederate Senate numbered 26, and the house 106, as follows:
Alabama, 9; Arkansas, 4; Florida, 2; Georgia, 10; Kentucky, 12;
Louisiana, 6; Mississippi, 1; Missouri, 7; North Carolina, 10; South
Carolina, 6; Tennessee, 11; Texas, 6; Virginia, 16. In both Congresses
Thomas S. Bocock, of Virginia, was Speaker of the House.[9]
For four months between the Presidential election and the
inauguration of Mr. Lincoln those favoring secession in the South
had practical control of their section, for while President Buchanan
hesitated as to his constitutional powers, the more active partisans in
his Cabinet were aiding their Southern friends in every practical way.
In answer to the visiting Commissioners from South Carolina,
Messrs. R. W. Barnwell, J. H. Adams and Jas. L. Orr, who formally
submitted that State’s ordinance of secession, and demanded
possession of the forts in Charleston harbor, Buchanan said:—
“In answer to this communication, I have to say that my position
as President of the United States was clearly defined in the message
to Congress on the 3d inst. In that I stated that ‘apart from the
execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive
has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the
Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been invested with
no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations
heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the
independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere executive
officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the
Confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no
resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto Government,
involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his
part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty to submit
to Congress the whole question in all its bearings.’
“Such is my opinion still. I could, therefore, meet you only as
private gentlemen of the highest character, and was entirely willing
to communicate to Congress any proposition you might have to make
to that body upon the subject. Of this you were well aware. It was my
earnest desire that such a disposition might be made of the whole
subject by Congress, who alone possess the power, as to prevent the
inauguration of a civil war between the parties in regard to the
possession of the Federal forts in the harbor of Charleston.”
Further correspondence followed between the President and other
seceding State Commissioners, and the attitude of the former led to
the following changes in his Cabinet: December 12th, 1860, Lewis
Cass resigned as Secretary of State, because the President declined to
reinforce the forts in Charleston harbor. December 17th, Jeremiah S.
Black was appointed his successor.
December 10th, Howell Cobb, resigned as Secretary of the
Treasury—“his duty to Georgia requiring it.” December 12th, Philip
F. Thomas was appointed his successor, and resigned, January 11th,
1861, because differing from the President and a majority of the
Cabinet, “in the measures which have been adopted in reference to
the recent condition of things in South Carolina,” especially
“touching the authority, under existing laws, to enforce the collection
of the customs at the port of Charleston.” January 11th, 1861, John
A. Dix appointed his successor.
29th, John B. Floyd resigned as Secretary of War, because, after
the transfer of Major Anderson’s command from Fort Moultrie to
Fort Sumter, the President declined “to withdraw the garrison from
the harbor of Charleston altogether.”
December 31st, Joseph Holt, Postmaster-General, was entrusted
with the temporary charge of the War Department, and January
18th, 1861, was appointed Secretary of War.
January 8th, 1861, Jacob Thompson resigned as Secretary of the
Interior, because “additional troops, he had heard, have been
ordered to Charleston” in the Star of the West.
December 17th, 1860, Jeremiah S. Black resigned as Attorney-
General, and Edwin M. Stanton, December 20th, was appointed his
successor.
January 18th, 1861, Joseph Holt resigned as Postmaster-General,
and Horatio King, February 12th, 1861, was appointed his
successor.
President Buchanan, in his annual message of December 3d, 1860,
appealed to Congress to institute an amendment to the constitution
recognizing the rights of the Southern States in regard to slavery in
the territories, and as this document embraced the views which
subsequently led to such a general discussion of the right of
secession and the right to coerce a State, we make a liberal quotation
from it:—
“I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary
resistance, because it has been claimed within the last few years that
any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may
secede from the Union in accordance with the Constitution, and
without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other
members of the Confederacy. That as each became parties to the
Union by the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any
one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner by the
vote of such a convention.
“In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be
on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary
association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the
contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to
be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public
opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States
may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile
republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility
whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course.
By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a
few weeks, which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation,
and blood to establish.
“Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as
the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with
the greatest deliberation and care, it was submitted to conventions of
the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were
discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the
country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the
Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its
advocates maintained that, under a fair construction of the
instrument, there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that
mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other
country, it never occurred to any individual, either among its
opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their
efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt
herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing
argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the
rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution. The
truth is, that it was not until some years after the origin of the
Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It
was afterwards met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of
General Jackson, who, in his message of the 16th of January, 1833,
transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress,
employs the following language: ‘The right of the people of a single
State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the
other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the

Instant Download PDF Statistics For Business and Economics 8th Edition Newbold Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download PDF Statistics For Business and Economics 8th Edition Newbold Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instant Download PDF Statistics For Business and Economics 8th Edition Newbold Solutions Manual Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statistics for Business and Economics

8th Edition Newbold Solutions Manual

Statistics for Business and Economics 8th Edition

Basic Statistics for Business and Economics 8th Edition

Essentials of Statistics for Business and Economics 8th

Basic Statistics for Business and Economics 8th Edition

Statistics for Business and Economics 13th Edition

Statistics for Business and Economics 12th Edition

Statistics for Business and Economics 11th Edition

Statistics for Business and Economics 13th Edition

9.1 H : p  .2; H : p  .2;

9.4 a. European perspective:

b. U.S. farmer perspective:

H : T  T Bush with more votes

H : T T Gore with more votes

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

9.14 Test H :0

9.15 Test H :0

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

9.26 The population values must be assumed to be normally distributed.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

9.30 H : p  .25; H : p  .25;

9.31 H : p  .25; H : p  .25; reject H

9.32 H : p = .5; H : p  .5;

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

9.33 H : p = .5; H : p  .5; reject H

9.34 H : p = .5; H : p  .5;

9.36 H : p  .75; H : p  .75;

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

9.38 What is the probability of Type II error if the actual proportion is

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

the decision is to reject the null hypothesis.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

9.55 a. X = 45, s = 10.5409

9.57 a. X = 333 / 9 = 37; sx = 312 8 = 6.245

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

9.59 a. H : p  .25; H : p  .25; reject H

9.60 H : p = .5; H : p  .5;

9.61 H : p = .5; H : p  .5;

9.62 H : p  .25; H : p  .25; reject H

9.63 H : p  .2; H : p  .2;

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

W = 1, 000 + 5(400) = 3, 000

9.66 Per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables

Per capita consumption of snack foods

Per capita consumption of soft drinks

Copyright © 2013 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall.

Per capita consumption of meat

9.67 Obesity rates of adults in the U.S. population.

Low-income preschool obesity rate in the U.S. population

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean

Variable 95.0% Lower Bound T P

X crit = Ho + tcrit ( S x ) : 40 + 1.686(1.70) = 42.8662