Answer:
There is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.
Step-by-step explanation:
We are given the following in the question:
Sample size, n = 1432
p = 23% = 0.23
Alpha, α = 0.05
Number of theft complaints , x = 321
First, we design the null and the alternate hypothesis
[tex]H_{0}: p = 0.23\\H_A: p < 0.23[/tex]
This is a one-tailed test.
Formula:
[tex]\hat{p} = \dfrac{x}{n} = \dfrac{321}{1432} =0.2241[/tex]
[tex]z = \dfrac{\hat{p}-p}{\sqrt{\dfrac{p(1-p)}{n}}}[/tex]
Putting the values, we get,
[tex]z = \displaystyle\frac{0.2241-0.23}{\sqrt{\frac{0.23(1-0.23)}{1432}}} = -0.5305[/tex]
Now, we calculate the p-value from the table.
P-value = 0.298
Since the p-value is greater than the significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis.
Conclusion:
Thus, there is not enough evidence to support the claim that Alaska had a lower proportion of identity theft than 23%.