city EstimateGreenBay 500GreenBay 148GreenBay 170GreenBay 250GreenBay 500GreenBay 400GreenBay 50GreenBay 200GreenBay 150GreenBay 80GreenBay 50GreenBay 76GreenBay 800GreenBay 138GreenBay 2000GreenBay 110GreenBay 60GreenBay 240GreenBay 650GreenBay 175GreenBay 20GreenBay 800GreenBay 85GreenBay 20GreenBay 200GreenBay 150GreenBay 70GreenBay 80GreenBay 100GreenBay 200GreenBay 130GreenBay 450GreenBay 100GreenBay 75Chicago 1700Chicago 102Chicago 300Chicago 1000Chicago 2500Chicago 3500Chicago 2000Chicago 2700Chicago 2000Chicago 1200Chicago 1600Chicago 1500Chicago 400Chicago 750Chicago 800Chicago 2000Chicago 1200Chicago 2200Chieago 1500Chicago 100Chicago 1500Chicago 2000Chicago 1500Chicago 1260Chicago 1800Chicago 900Chicago 50Chicago 400Chicago 980Chicago 2256Chicago 1300Chicago 1800Chicago 1800Chicago 1500Chicago 275

Anchoring 6.3.13 Recall the study about anchoring from Exercise 6.2.16, in which students estimated the population of Milwaukee after some had been told about Chicago and others about Green Bay. (This uses the dataset Milwaukee.) a. Describe in words the parameter(s) of interest in the context of this study. b. In the context of the parameter(s) described in part (a), express the null and alternative hypotheses for testing whether the class data give strong evidence in support of the anchoring phenomenon described above. If you use symbols, make sure to define them. c. Check whether the conditions for the validity of the theory-based t-test to compare two means are satisfied here. d. Use appropriate technology (an applet or a statistical software package) to conduct a t-test of significance of the hypotheses that you stated in part (b). Report the test statistic and p-value. e. State your conclusion in the context of the study, being sure to comment on statistical significance. f. Determine and interpret the 95% confidence interval using a theory-based approach for the parameter(s) of interest in the context of the study. g. Comment on causation and generalization for this study