Tom Frederick is the computer support manager for a large company whose employees have been complaining about “spam,” which many of us know as unwanted e-mail to solicit our money or our attention. Tom asked a sample of 9 employees to keep track of the number of spam messages they received during the previous week. He then installed a spam “filter” into the e-mail system to block some of the spam by identifying key words that often appear in such messages. During the week following installation of the filter, the number of spam messages received by each of the 9 employees was again counted, with the results shown here. At the 0.05 level of significance, can we conclude that Tom’s filtering system is effective in reducing the weekly number of spam messages an employee receives?
Answer to relevant QuestionsA researcher studying the purchase habits of eight married couples has found they spent the amounts shown below for clothing. At the 0.05 level, can we conclude that the population of husbands and wives do not spend equally ...Differentiate between the Kruskal-Wallis test and the one-way analysis of variance in terms of their assumptions and the circumstances under which each should be applied. For three random samples of employees, each sample consisting of employees from a given age group, the data in file XR14033 show the number of absences over the past 6 months. At the 0.10 level, can we conclude that the ...To evaluate whether three of its slopes should be classified as equally difficult, a ski resort sets up an experiment in which three skiers from each skill category (A = beginner to F = expert) are randomly selected to make ...What is the parametric counterpart to the Wilcoxon signed rank test for one sample? Compare the assumptions involved in using the respective tests.
Post your question