Two competitive investment fund managers devised a plan to determine which one is better at picking stocks. They hired a statistician to randomly select some stocks from each manager's portfolio and to compare the proportions of these stocks that are valued higher than they were 6 months earlier. Her analysis revealed that 66% of the stocks picked by manager #1 had increased in value while 60% of the stocks picked by manager #2 had increased in value. Her p-value for a two tailed test was 0.3500. At a significance level of 0.05, what should she conclude? o Fund manager #1 is better at picking stocks than fund manager #2. o Fund manager #2 is better at picking stocks than fund manager #1. O There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the two fund managers differ in their ability to pick stocks. o There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the two fund managers differ in their ability to pick stocks.

Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897, 0079039898, 2018
18th Edition
ISBN:9780079039897
Author:Carter
Publisher:Carter
Chapter10: Statistics
Section10.6: Summarizing Categorical Data
Problem 10CYU
icon
Related questions
Question
Two competitive investment fund managers devised a plan
to determine which one is better at picking stocks. They
hired a statistician to randomly select some stocks from
each manager's portfolio and to compare the proportions of
these stocks that are valued higher than they were 6 months
earlier. Her analysis revealed that 66% of the stocks picked
by manager #1 had increased in value while 60% of the
stocks picked by manager #2 had increased in value. Her
p-value for a two tailed test was 0.3500. At a significance
level of 0.05, what should she conclude?
o Fund manager #1 is better at picking stocks than
fund manager #2.
o Fund manager #2 is better at picking stocks than
fund manager
#1.
o There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the
two fund managers differ in their ability to pick
stocks.
o There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the two
fund managers differ in their ability to pick stocks.
Transcribed Image Text:Two competitive investment fund managers devised a plan to determine which one is better at picking stocks. They hired a statistician to randomly select some stocks from each manager's portfolio and to compare the proportions of these stocks that are valued higher than they were 6 months earlier. Her analysis revealed that 66% of the stocks picked by manager #1 had increased in value while 60% of the stocks picked by manager #2 had increased in value. Her p-value for a two tailed test was 0.3500. At a significance level of 0.05, what should she conclude? o Fund manager #1 is better at picking stocks than fund manager #2. o Fund manager #2 is better at picking stocks than fund manager #1. o There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the two fund managers differ in their ability to pick stocks. o There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the two fund managers differ in their ability to pick stocks.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps with 1 images

Blurred answer
Recommended textbooks for you
Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897…
Glencoe Algebra 1, Student Edition, 9780079039897…
Algebra
ISBN:
9780079039897
Author:
Carter
Publisher:
McGraw Hill
Holt Mcdougal Larson Pre-algebra: Student Edition…
Holt Mcdougal Larson Pre-algebra: Student Edition…
Algebra
ISBN:
9780547587776
Author:
HOLT MCDOUGAL
Publisher:
HOLT MCDOUGAL