Question

Based on the 99% confidence interval, (–0.25, 0.10), is there convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportion of voters ages 18–30 and ages 31–40 who would support an increase to the food tax? there is convincing evidence because the two sample proportions are different. there is convincing evidence because the difference in the two proportions is –0.07. since this is not 0, there is difference in the true proportion of voters ages 18–30 and ages 31–40 who would support an increase to the food tax there is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0, indicating there might not be a difference. there is not convincing evidence because two different sample sizes were used. in order to determine a difference, the same number of voters should be selected from each population.

Answer 1

Based on the 99% confidence interval, there is not convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportion of voters ages 18–30 and ages 31–40 who would support an increase to the food tax.

Step-by-step explanation:

Based on the 99% confidence interval, (-0.25, 0.10), there is not convincing evidence of a difference in the true proportion of voters ages 18–30 and ages 31–40 who would support an increase to the food tax.

Since the confidence interval contains 0, it indicates that there might not be a difference between the two proportions.

Therefore, the answer is: There is not convincing evidence because the interval contains 0, indicating there might not be a difference.