In 1995, the mean math SAT score for students at one school was 488. A teacher introduces a new teaching method to prepare students for the SAT. One year later, he performs a hypothesis test to determine whether the mean math SAT score has increased. The hypotheses are

$\begin{array} { l } \mathrm { H } _ { 0 } : \mu = 488 \ \mathrm { H } _ { \mathrm { a } } : \mu 488 \end{array}$

If the null hypothesis is rejected at the 10% level of significance, do you think the teacher would feel confident that his teaching method works? What about if the null hypothesis is rejected at the 1% level of significance? Which of these two results would constitute stronger evidence that his teaching method works? Explain your thinking.

Question

In 1995, the mean math SAT score for students at one school was 488. A teacher introduces a new teaching method to prepare students for the SAT. One year later, he performs a hypothesis test to determine whether the mean math SAT score has increased. The hypotheses are

$\begin{array} { l }  \mathrm { H } _ { 0 } : \mu = 488 \ \mathrm { H } _ { \mathrm { a } } : \mu > 488 \end{array}$

If the null hypothesis is rejected at the 10% level of significance, do you think the teacher would feel confident that his teaching method works? What about if the null hypothesis is rejected at the 1% level of significance? Which of these two results would constitute stronger evidence that his teaching method works? Explain your thinking.

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer of In 1995, the mean math SAT score for students at one school was 488. A teacher introduces a new teaching method to prepare students for the SAT. One year later, he performs a hypothesis test to determine whether the mean math SAT score has increased. The hypotheses are

$\begin{array} { l }  \mathrm { H } _ { 0 } : \mu = 488 \ \mathrm { H } _ { \mathrm { a } } : \mu > 488 \end{array}$

If the null hypothesis is rejected at the 10% level of significance, do you think the teacher would feel confident that his teaching method works? What about if the null hypothesis is rejected at the 1% level of significance? Which of these two results would constitute stronger evidence that his teaching method works? Explain your thinking.

In 1995, the Mean Math SAT Score for Students at One