In a study of the accuracy of fast food drive-through orders, one restaurant had orders that were not accurate among orders observed. Use a significance level to test the claim that the rate of inaccurate orders is equal to 10%. Does the accuracy rate appear to be acceptable

Complete Question

In a study of the accuracy of fast food drive-through orders, one restaurant had 32 orders that were not accurate among 367 orders observed. Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim that the rate of inaccurate orders is equal to 10%. Does the accuracy rate appear to be acceptable?

The decision rule  is

  Fail to reject the null hypothesis

The conclusion is  

  There is sufficient evidence to show that the rate of inaccurate orders is equal to 10%

Step-by-step explanation:

Generally from the question we are told that

   The sample size is  n =  367

    The number of orders that were not accurate is  

    The population proportion for rate of inaccurate orders is  p = 0.10

The null hypothesis is  

The alternative hypothesis is  

Generally the sample proportion is mathematically represented as  

=>      

=>      

Generally the test statistics is mathematically represented as

=>        

=>      

From the z table  the area under the normal curve to the left corresponding to  -0.8174 is  

Generally the p-value is mathematically represented as

=>      

From the value obtained we see that   hence

The decision rule  is

  Fail to reject the null hypothesis

The conclusion is  

  There is sufficient evidence to show that the rate of inaccurate orders is equal to 10%

area of part 1:

a1=base*height/2=(8+2)*(8-2-2-1)/2=10*3/2=15 ft^2

area of part 2:

a2=length*width=(8+2)*1=10 ft2

area of part 3:

a3=length*width=8*2=16 ft2

total shaded area : a1+a2+a3=41 ft2

total area of the reactangle : a=16*8=128 ft2

total area of the nonshaded region : 128-41=87 ft2

first one is a: renaming a fraction. second one is c: de-c

step-by-step explanation:

my explanation is that these were the answers on edg : )