Final answer:
Without specific data on the standard deviation or margin of error, we cannot calculate the exact sample size required. However, option d) 32 samples would logically provide a more accurate 98% confidence interval due to being the largest sample size option.
Step-by-step explanation:
To achieve a more accurate 98% confidence interval for the population mean amount of ground toxins, we would need to determine an appropriate sample size. This typically involves using a sample size formula that incorporates the desired confidence level, the population standard deviation (if known), and the acceptable margin of error. Without specific data on standard deviation or margin of error, we cannot calculate the exact sample size required.
However, the provided options suggest increasing the sample size from 16 to a larger number. In general, increasing the sample size from an initial 16 samples to a larger number will reduce the margin of error and widen the confidence interval. This is because, as the sample size increases, the estimator of the population mean becomes more precise, assuming a normal distribution and a known standard deviation.
Without additional information, we cannot definitively choose between the provided options (8, 16, 24, 32). However, assuming that the current sample of 16 is inadequate, and more data would help improve the accuracy of the confidence interval, the logical choice would be to increase the sample size to either 24 or 32 samples. Common sense and statistical best practices would suggest that option d) 32 samples would provide a more accurate 98% confidence interval since it is the largest suggested sample size.