A recent newspaper article claims that 66% of car accidents involve some evidence of distracted driving. A police officer questions this claim, and pulls a random sample of 70 accident reports. If 50 of them involve distracted driving, is this enough evidence to show that the proportion of car accidents involve some evidence of distracted driving issignificantlygreater than than reported by the newspaper? (Use

=0.10)

1. For this study, we should useSelect an answer1-PropZIntT-Test1-PropZTest2-SampTIntGOF-TestANOVA2-PropZTest-TestTInterval2-PropZInt2-SampTTest
3. The null and alternative hypotheses would be:
4. H
5. 0
6. H
7. 0
8. :?pSelect an answer<=>(please enter a decimal)
9. H
10. 1
11. H
12. 1
13. :?pSelect an answer>=<(Please enter a decimal)
15. The test statistic =(please show your answer to 3 decimal places.)
17. The p-value =(Please show your answer to 4 decimal places.)
19. The p-value is?>
22. Based on this, we shouldSelect an answeracceptfail to rejectrejectthe null hypothesis.
24. As such, the final conclusion is that ...

• The sample data suggest that the population proportion is notsignificantlygreater than 66% at
• = 0.10, so there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of car accidents involve some evidence of distracted driving is greater than 66%.
• The sample data suggest that the populaton proportion issignificantlygreater than 66% at
• = 0.10, so there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of car accidents involve some evidence of distracted driving is greater than 66%