We are 95% confident that the population proportion in 2000 that supported preferential hiring of women is about 0.0509 and the population proportion in 2010 is 0.04723. we are 95% confidence that the population proportion in 2000 that supported preferential hiring of women is between 0.0509 less to 0.04273 more than the population proportion in 2010. we are 95% confidence that the population proportion in 2010 that supported preferential hiring of women is between 0.0509 less to 0.04273 more than the population proportion in 2000. we are 95% confident that the population proportion in 2010 that supported preferential hiring of women is about 0.0509 and the population proportion in 2000 is 0.04723.

What do Americans think about preferential hiring of women? Has there been a change in the past decade? In 2000(group 1) and 2010(Group 2), the General Social Survey asked participants if they would favor or oppose preferential hiring of women. In 2000, out of 849 respondents, 271 said yes. In 2010, out of 696 respondents, 225 said yes. The 95% confidence interval for p1-p2 is (-0.0509, 0.04273). What would be an appropriate conclusion? O We are 95% confident that the population proportion in 2010 that supported preferential hiring of women is about 0.0509 and the population proportion in 2000 is 0.04723. We are 95% confident that the pulation proportion in 2000 that supported preferential hiring of women is about 0.0509 and the population proportion in 2010 is 0.04723. We are 95% confidence that the population proportion in 2010 that supported preferential hiring of women is between 0.0509 less to 0.04273 more than the population proportion in 2000. O We are 95% confidence that the population proportion in 2000 that supported preferential hiring of women is between 0.0509 less to 0.04273 more than the population proportion in 2010.

Step-by-step explanation:

b. qualitative data uses, words while quantitative data uses numbers

step-by-step explanation:

there are 14 dogs at the park now