the distribution of professional baseball player salaries has a mean of $3.2 million. an analyst believes…

the distribution of professional baseball player salaries has a mean of $3.2 million. an analyst believes that the mean salary for teams on the east coast is different. the analyst randomly selects 30 baseball players from teams on the east coast and records their annual salaries. the mean salary for the players in the sample is $3.9 million with a standard deviation of $2.1 million. the analyst conducts a one - sample t - test for $mu$ and calculates a p - value of 0.078. at the $alpha = 0.05$ level, what is the correct conclusion for this test? the analyst should reject the null hypothesis since 0.078 > 0.05. there is convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the east coast is different from $3.2 million. the analyst should accept the null hypothesis since 0.078 > 0.05. there is not convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the east coast is different from $3.2 million. the analyst should fail to reject the null hypothesis since 0.078 > 0.05. there is convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the east coast is different from $3.2 million. the analyst should fail to reject the null hypothesis since 0.078 > 0.05. there is not convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the

the distribution of professional baseball player salaries has a mean of $3.2 million. an analyst believes that the mean salary for teams on the east coast is different. the analyst randomly selects 30 baseball players from teams on the east coast and records their annual salaries. the mean salary for the players in the sample is $3.9 million with a standard deviation of $2.1 million. the analyst conducts a one - sample t - test for $mu$ and calculates a p - value of 0.078. at the $alpha = 0.05$ level, what is the correct conclusion for this test? the analyst should reject the null hypothesis since 0.078 > 0.05. there is convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the east coast is different from $3.2 million. the analyst should accept the null hypothesis since 0.078 > 0.05. there is not convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the east coast is different from $3.2 million. the analyst should fail to reject the null hypothesis since 0.078 > 0.05. there is convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the east coast is different from $3.2 million. the analyst should fail to reject the null hypothesis since 0.078 > 0.05. there is not convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the

Answer

Explanation:

Step1: Recall hypothesis - testing rule

In hypothesis - testing, if the P - value is greater than the significance level $\alpha$, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Step2: Compare P - value and $\alpha$

We are given that $\alpha = 0.05$ and the P - value is $0.078$. Since $0.078>0.05$.

Step3: Draw conclusion

When we fail to reject the null hypothesis, it means there is not convincing evidence to support the alternative hypothesis. Here, the alternative hypothesis is that the mean salary of East - Coast baseball players is different from $$3.2$ million. So, there is not convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the East Coast is different from $$3.2$ million.

Answer:

The analyst should fail to reject the null hypothesis since $0.078 > 0.05$. There is not convincing evidence that the mean salary of the baseball players on the East Coast is different from $$3.2$ million.