Question

a magazine claims that the mean amount spent by a customer at burger stop is greater than the mea a customer at fry world. the results for samples of customer transactions for the two fast food restau below. at α = 0.05, can you support the magazine’s claim? assume the population variances are equa samples are random and independent, and the populations are normally distributed. complete parts ( below.

burger stop | fry world
\\(\bar{x}_1 = \\$9.89\\) | \\(\bar{x}_2 = \\$9.26\\)
\\(s_1 = \\$0.79\\) | \\(s_2 = \\$0.68\\)
\\(n_1 = 13\\) | \\(n_2 = 11\\)

the mean amount spent by a customer at fry world is greater than the mean amount spen
\\(\bigcirc\\) c. burger stop.\
\the mean amount spent by a customer at burger stop is not equal to the mean amount spe
\\(\bigcirc\\) d. fry world.\

what are \\(h_0\\) and \\(h_a\\)?
the null hypothesis, \\(h_0\\), is \\(\mu_1 \leq \mu_2\\). the alternative hypothesis, \\(h_a\\), is \\(\mu_1 > \mu_2\\).

which hypothesis is the claim?
\\(\bigcirc\\) the null hypothesis, \\(h_0\\)
\\(\bigcirc\\) the alternative hypothesis, \\(h_a\\)

Explanation:

The magazine claims that the mean amount spent at Burger Stop ($\mu_1$) is greater than at Fry World ($\mu_2$), which is the alternative hypothesis $H_a: \mu_1 > \mu_2$. Claims in hypothesis testing that involve a "greater than" (or "less than", "not equal") relationship are part of the alternative hypothesis, not the null (which typically has equality or no difference).

Answer:

The alternative hypothesis, $\boldsymbol{H_a}$