A bank manager has been presented with a new brochure that was designed to be more effective in attracting current customers to a personal financial counseling session that would include an analysis of additional banking services that could be advantageous to both the bank and the customer. The manager’s assistant, who created the new brochure, randomly selects 400 current customers, then randomly chooses 200 to receive the standard brochure that has been used in the past, with the other 200 receiving the promising new brochure that he has developed. Of those receiving the standard brochure, 35% call for more information about the counseling session, while 42% of those receiving the new brochure call for more information. Using the 0.10 level of significance, is it possible that the superior performance of the new brochure was just due to chance and that the new brochure might really be no better than the old one?
HI! HELP ME PLEASE. TYSM!
A bank manager has been presented with a new
brochure that was designed to be more effective in
attracting current customers to a personal financial counseling session that would include an analysis of additional
banking services that could be advantageous to both the
bank and the customer. The manager’s assistant, who
created the new brochure, randomly selects 400 current
customers, then randomly chooses 200 to receive the
standard brochure that has been used in the past, with the
other 200 receiving the promising new brochure that he
has developed. Of those receiving the standard brochure,
35% call for more information about the counseling session, while 42% of those receiving the new brochure call
for more information. Using the 0.10 level of significance,
is it possible that the superior performance of the new
brochure was just due to chance and that the new brochure might really be no better than the old one?
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
