The manufacturer of a certain engine treatment claims that if you add their product to your engine, it will be protected from excessive wear. an infomercial claims that a woman drove 33 hours without oil, to the engine treatment. a magazine tested engines in which they added the treatment to the motor oil, ran the engines, drained the oil, and then determined the time until the engines seized. determine the null and alternative hypotheses that the magazine will test.

Step-by-step explanation:

Let be the average number of hours a person drive without adding the product.

Given claim : An infomercial claims that a woman drove 33 hours without oil.

i.e.

It is known that the null hypothesis always contains equal sign and alternative hypothesis is just opposite of the null hypothesis.

Thus the null and alternative hypothesis for the given situation will be :-

The null hypotheses that the magazine will test is .

Alternative: .

Step-by-step explanation:

The null hypotheses is the one which contains the equal sign, while the alternative hypotheses is the opposite of the null hypotheses.

In this problem, we have that:

The manufacturer of a certain engine treatment claims that if you add their product to your engine, it will be protected from excessive wear. An infomercial claims that a woman drove 33 hours without oil, thanks to the engine treatment.

This means that at the very least, due to treatment, the engine should have lasted 33 hours. So the null hypotheses that the magazine will test is .

Otherwise, the engine may have lasted less than 33 hours. So .

expression #3 is not equivalent. the others are.

answer: d. $20

step-by-step explanation:

just took the test