Answer:
No, the test doesn't show enough evidence to declare that a significantly higher proportion of multinational companies provide a long-distance call allowance.
Explanation:
We are given that Eighteen percent of U.S.-based multinational companies provide an allowance for personal long-distance calls for executives living overseas.
A new study is conducted by contacting 376 multinational companies. Twenty-two percent of these surveyed companies are providing an allowance for personal long-distance calls to executives living overseas.
Let p = proportion of multinational companies who provide a long-distance call allowance.
So, Null Hypothesis,
: p
18% {means that lesser or same proportion of multinational companies provide a long-distance call allowance}
Alternate Hypothesis,
: p > 18% {means that higher proportion of multinational companies provide a long-distance call allowance}
The test statistics that would be used here One-sample z proportion statistics;
T.S. =
~ N(0,1)
where,
= sample proportion of companies who are providing an allowance for personal long-distance calls = 22%
n = sample of multinational companies = 376
So, test statistics =
= 1.872
The value of z test statistics is 1.872.
Now, at 0.01 level of significance the z table gives critical value of 2.3263 for right-tailed test. Since, our test statistics is less than the critical value of z as 1.872 < 2.3263, so we have insufficient evidence to reject our null hypothesis as it will not fall in the rejection region due to which we fail to reject our null hypothesis.
Therefore, we conclude that lesser or same proportion of multinational companies provide a long-distance call allowance.