Researchers Hill and Barton used data from the 2004 Olympics to test whether one uniform color (red or blue) gave athletes a competitive advantage. In the sports of boxing tae kwon do, and wrestling, athletes are randomly assigned either a red or blue uniform. They found that out of 457 matches, the competitor in red won 248 times.

Let pi be the long-term probability that an Olympic match of boxing tae kwon do, or wrestling is won by the athlete wearing a red uniform. Then we want to test

H0:π=0.50

Ha:π≠0.50

a. Is a normal approximation for the null distribution appropriate?

A. No
B. Yes

b. Compute a theory-based p-value for this study. If a normal approximation is appropriate, then use a normal approximation. If not, then use a binomial distribution.

c. What is your conclusion?

A. There is moderate evidence that the long-term probability of winning for Olympic athletes in red uniforms is not 0.5.
B. There is strong evidence that the long-term probability of winning for Olympic athletes in red uniforms is not 0.5.
C. It is plausible that the long-term probability of winning for Olympic athletes in red uniforms is 0.5.

In June 2004, Jen Kluger and Suzie Orol received a phone call from Sarah Gibson, one of their retail customers, in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Gibson called with a complaint about how many of her competitors now carried Foxy Originals jewelry. Gibson’s store had been the exclusive carrier of Foxy Originals jewelry in the Winnipeg area for a number of years. With the growing popularity of its designs, many stores in the area now carried the Foxy Originals line. Kluger and Orol, owners and partners of Foxy Originals, were worried. If they continued to saturate the Canadian market, they would be faced with similar concerns from customers across Canada. The partners realized that it was time to grow the outside Canada, and they were excited about the possibility of selling their jewelry in the United States. Their goal was to enter the U.S. market by January 2005, but they would first have to decide on the best method of distribution attending trade shows or hiring sales representatives.

Jen Kluger and Suzie Orol believed that life should be fun and full of excitement, and they founded Foxy Originals based on these beliefs. These two young jewelry designers met while attending The University of Western Ontario, and they set out with a vision to make high style fashion jewelry accessible to young women. Both partners had experience in the jewelry industry. Orol’s parents owned a metal manufacturing company that focused on making jewelry and medals for companies and community groups. Orol was involved in the family business from a young age. Kluger had been designing and selling her own line of necklaces since she was in Grade 11.Kluger and Orol started their business, Foxy Originals (Foxy), in 1998. They sold a modest line of jewelry to friends and acquaintances on campus while attending university. In the summers before graduation, the partners took Foxy on the road to various outdoor festivals and summer concerts. The results were very positive. Upon graduation, with business degrees in their back pockets, Kluger and Orol left corporate job offers behind to work full time at Foxy. The partners spent their time designing new product lines and promoting Foxy in new markets. As the company grew and the jewelry that sold at festivals and summer concerts became more popular, Kluger and Orol began selling their jewelry to retail stores. Each retail account took a significant amount of time to develop, with the partners personally contacting and meeting with each store’s product buyer. The partners were very successful at selling to retailers due to their high energy, enthusiasm and knowledge of the product. As a result, in the first three years of operations, the company’s sales had doubled every year. Sales were continuing to grow at a rapid pace. Kluger and Orol were always very enthusiastic about their designs, and Canadian retailers began placing orders for Foxy jewelry after meeting these dynamic founders and learning about the products. It wasn’t long before Foxy jewelry could be found in 250 boutiques across Canada. Kluger and Orol personally sold (i.e., they had no sales representatives) their product lines to every retailer in Canada and managed all operations. Kluger and Orol described Foxy as a company that managed to stay two steps ahead of the latest trends: In doing so, our collections remain fresh, fun and funky. We realize that in this day and age, being hip and trendy comes at a high cost; not so with Foxy. We are able to provide a selection of necklaces, earrings, bracelets and rings that are truly fashion-forward, at a reasonable price.

Foxy jewelry offered high style and high quality at an affordable price point and targeted women between the ages of 18 to 30 who were style- and price-conscious. The jewelry was designed for three groups of women: The Reversible Enamels Ladies, The Bridge Ladies and The Chain-lovin’ Ladies. Kluger and Orol explained each customer group: The Reversible Enamels Ladies: Reversible necklace enthusiasts are usually the very dedicated Foxy customers who have been following our company since Day 1. They are slightly more conservative with their style and use Foxy jewelry to add a little something special to their outfits. They love the idea that they are getting two necklaces for the price of one. (See Exhibit 1 for sample product preferences for this group.)The Bridge Ladies: These customers consist of young, suit-wearing professionals. They want to add a little accent to their suits, but they need to be careful how much they add. These customers go for the leather necklaces with the bigger pendants. (See Exhibit 2 for sample product preferences for this group.)The Chain-lovin’ Ladies: These customers are more fashion savvy and trendy. They read the fashion magazines and seek out “that look.” These ladies collect our big earrings and long necklaces. They layer the Foxy necklaces and try the newest collections as soon as they are in the stores. (See Exhibit 3 for sample product preferences for this group.)

Foxy jewelry was designed and produced in Toronto, Canada. Kluger and Orol designed all the jewelry, releasing two new collections every year. A collection or product line consisted of a number of different styles of necklaces, earrings and rings, where all styles were associated with a central theme such as “Royal Safari.” The designs were assembled by a small production team of professional crafts people.

All Foxy jewelry was made from pewter and coated in sterling silver, matte gold or bronze with a matte finish. Each item was then stamped with the Foxy signature to authenticate the designs (see Exhibit 4 for the Foxy signature tag). From this common starting point, the pieces were transformed into original works through the integration of enamel, stones, leather and ultrasuede.

Kluger and Orol had established a strong Foxy presence in the Canadian market, and they were now ready to expand into the United States. Financially, Foxy was healthy so any distribution costs related to the U.S. expansion could be financed from internal operations (i.e., no funding was needed). The key fashion hubs in the United States were New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas. Kluger and Orol did not want Foxy to be available on every street corner in every city. Instead, they preferred selling to reputable stores that suited the brand. Kluger and Orol decided to charge the same price for their products in the United States as they did in Canada (i.e., a necklace sold for Cdn$34 and, in the United States would sell for US$34). The U.S. jewelry market was more than 10 times larger than the Canadian jewelry market, offering a much greater opportunity for product exposure. Based on the success they had achieved in Canada, Kluger and Orol believed in their product, but they worried about how responsive the U.S. market would be to their jewelry designs. The partners believed that Canadians supported Canadian businesses and were brand loyal to companies that manufactured locally; however, they suspected that Americans preferred the latest trends regardless of the product’s origin. Classic jewelry (currently 50 per cent of Foxy merchandise in Canada) was also not as popular in the United States. Kluger and Orol would need to stay on top of Foxy’s fashion-forward designs to compete effectively.

Trade shows were one-stop marketplaces for retailers to source products from wholesalers and importers. They were positioned for registered personnel only, usually consisting of buyers from fashion boutiques, accessories, jewelry, gift, fashion chain, department and other specialty stores. These exhibitions were not open to the general public. U.S. trade shows were very large, often with over 75,000 buyers in attendance. Kluger and Orol planned to set up a booth at several trade shows in order to showcase Foxy jewelry to prospective buyers. Buyers would select what merchandise they would like to carry in their stores and would then place their orders with the exhibitor. The partners had plans to attend trade shows devoted to women’s fashion accessories, surf apparel and giftware. There were 10 potential trade shows for 2005 where Foxy could showcase its products. Registration for all shows needed to be complete by November 2004, at an average cost of $3,000 a show. The average trade show lasted three days, wherein Kluger and Orol would require five days of preparation and both would work nine hours a day at the trade show. Kluger and Orol were excited about attending the shows to learn about the U.S. jewelry market and to get ideas for new product innovations. Trade shows were a great way for the partners to personally sell their merchandise and to network with key people in the industry. The partners also loved to travel, and they looked forward to visiting the big U.S. fashion hubs. Because of the diverse attendance at these shows, it was difficult for the partners to predict at which retail stores their merchandise would be sold. Ideally, they preferred that all major fashion-forward stores within a geographic area would support Foxy’s merchandise; however, sales would likely be scattered across locations that were diverse in geography and brand image. One of the principal selling factors at trade shows was the exhibitors’ booth layout –– the more exciting and flashy the booth, the greater the number of visitors. The partners researched a number of booths and settled on one that would cost $4,000 and could be used for approximately 30 trade shows (see Exhibit 5 for booth display). The booth would have to be shipped to each trade show at an average cost of $1,500 a show. Plane tickets and related travel costs would average $2,000per show, and product samples and promotional materials would cost $2,800 per show. Kluger and Orol had friends in many U.S. cities, so they planned to stay overnight with them when visiting the shows.

The partners had estimated that an average retailer order would consist of 25 necklaces and 12 pairs of earrings. Retailers would purchase necklaces for $17 and earrings for $12 from Foxy, which they would then sell to their customers for $34 and $24 respectively. Shipping terms were FOB shipping point and cost an average of $15 an order. All necklaces consisted of a chain, a pendant, a label, a clasp, and labor fees for a total cost of $8.05 for each necklace. A pair of earrings cost approximately $5.50 to manufacture. The partners expected anywhere from 20 to 45 orders at each trade show. Historically, 50 per cent of retail buyers at the trade shows would reorder product approximately two times a year.

An alternative method of distribution would be to develop a sales force in the key fashion hubs in the United States. Sales representatives would carry 10 to 15 different brands, usually within the same category of products (i.e., accessories), and would sell to retailers in designated geographic zones. Kluger and Orol wanted to hire people who would be loyal and who could represent the appropriate Foxy brand attributes. Kluger and Orol noted: “The most important characteristics in sales representatives are that they believe in your product, and they are willing to get on the road or travel to show it well.” Kluger and Orol knew having a sales force would be a much faster way for Foxy to enter the market because of the sales representatives’ contacts in the industry, their relationships with existing retailers and the minimum amount of training they would require. They also knew it could be difficult to find the right people with the right characteristics to make this alternative work.

Sales representatives would be compensated with a 15 per cent commission on all sales.

They would also receive $200 a month towards rental space in their jewelry showrooms5(see Exhibit 6 for showroom display), two sets of sample boards6a year for a total cost of $2,900 and catalogues and promotional materials averaging $600 a year. Foxy would have to hire a part-time bookkeeper to pay the sales representatives because calculating sales commissions would be time-consuming and complicated. The bookkeeper’s fee would be $40 an hour, and this person would be required for 48 hours a year. Travel expenses, such as gas and mileage were not covered by Foxy. Production costs and retailer order size were the same for this option as for the trade show option. The average sales representative would sell between 10 to 15 orders each month. The 10 to 15 orders included both new account sales and reorders from existing customers. If this option was chosen, Kluger and Orol planned to hire four sales representatives, one in each of the major cities of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Dallas.

Ideally, Foxy preferred to enter the U.S. market by attending trade shows and hiring a sales force. The problem with this alternative was territory ownership. For example, if Kluger and Orol attended a trade show in New York, and had hired a New York based sales representative, it was an industry norm that the sales representative would expect a 15 per cent commission from sales made at the New York trade show. Kluger and Orol investigated structuring the sales representatives’ commission package based on sales they made personally rather than on all sales made within their geographic location. Sales representatives were unhappy with this alternative because not only would competition be created between sales representatives, but also between the sales representatives and Foxy. For example, sales representatives worked hard to establish contracts, and many times, contracts were signed with one store, and as a result, other stores would see the product and would want to carry it themselves. Sales representatives believed they should be compensated for these spillover sales, and they were concerned that the new retail stores could order directly from Foxy. To combat the issue of internal competition, the partners thought about attending trade shows in the major cities and having their sales force work in the smaller cities; however, smaller cities were not as fashion-forward, and would not help to establish the Foxy brand presence in the United States, the way sales representatives could in major cities. In the short term, Kluger and Orol decided to focus on just one of the distribution channels in order to limit the complexities of the U.S. expansion. If the partners decided to pursue both trade shows and sales representatives, it would be a longer-term strategy.

Kluger and Orol were excited about the U.S. opportunities, and they wanted to ensure they were entering the market with a solid strategy. The partners had built the business on the principles of having fun, gaining exposure for new product lines and staying ahead of fashion trends. To date, they had been highly financially successful in doing just this. Knowing the additional workload that the U.S. expansion would create, they hoped their profit would grow by at least $100,000. Both options appeared promising but not without risks. Kluger and Orol had to make a decision quickly to prepare for a January 2005 launch.

WITHOUT USING EXCEL:

1. Calculate the number of orders at a target profit of $100,000

PLEASE SHOW CALCULATOR STEPS INCLUDING WHAT YOU INPUT FOR THE TESTS Just before the 2004 Democratic convention, Rasmussen Reports polled 1500 likely voters at random and found that 705 favored John Kerry. Just after the convention, they took another random sample of 1500 likely voters and found that 735 favored Kerry. Did Kerry’s favorability rating increase after the national convention? Use a significance level of a = 0.05.

a) Give the name of the hypothesis test that would be appropriate for this situation. (1 point)

b) State the hypotheses in symbols. (2 points)

c) Use your calculator to perform the appropriate hypothesis test and report the test statistic and p-value. Be sure to write out what you entered in your calculator. (3 points)

d) Make a sketch of the test distribution. Be sure to label the test statistic and p-value. (2 points)

e) Write a full conclusion for this test in the context of the problem. (2 points)

f) Find a 90% confidence interval for the difference in John Kerry’s favorability rating before and after the convention. Do not make these calculations by hand. Instead, use the correct command in your graphing calculator and write out what you entered. (3 points)

g) Does this confidence interval support your conclusion in part (e)? Explain. (2 points)

Brief the following case using the IRAC method.

Issue:

Rule:

Application:

Conclusion:

On February l, 2004, CBS, the television network, presented a live broadcast of the National Football League's Super Bowl XXXVIII, which included a
halftime show produced by MTV Networks. Both CBS and MTV were divisions of Viacom Inc. at the time. Nearly 90 million viewers watched the show,
which featured recording artists Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. Jackson and Timberlake performed his popular song "Rock Your Body " as the show's
finale. Their performance involved sexually suggestive choreography with Timberlake seeking to dance with Jackson and she alternating between accepting and
rejecting his advances. The performance ended with Timberlake singing, "gonna have you naked by the end of this song, " and simultaneously tearing away part
ofJackson 's bustier. CBS had implemented a five-second audio delay to guard against the possibility of indecent language being transmitted on air, but it did
not employ similar precautionary technology for video images. As a result, Jackson's bare right breast was exposed on camera for nine-sixteenths of one second.

Jackson 's exposed breast caused a sensation and resulted in a large number of viewer complaints to the Federal Communications Commission. In response, the
FCC issued a letter of inquiry asking CBS to provide more information about the broadcast. CBS issued a public statement of apology for the incident. CBS
stated that Jackson and Timberlake's wardrobe stunt was unscripted and unauthorized, claiming CBS had no advance notice of any plan by the performers to
deviate from the script. After its review, the FCC determined CBS was liable for a forfeiture penalty of $550,000 on several grounds, including that under the
doctrine ofrespondeat superior, CBS was vicariously liable for the willful actions of its employees, Jackson and Timberlake. CBS asked the Third Circuit
Court ofAppeals to review the FCC decision.

Scirica, Chief Judge
The respondeat superior doctrine provides that "[a]n employer is subject to liability for torts committed by employees while acting within the scope of their
employment." Restatement (Third) ofAgency 2.04 (2006)

But even though the respondeat superior doctrine may apply in this context, it is limited to the conduct of employees acting within the scope of their
employment. Determining whether CBS may be liable under respondeat superior first requires selection of the applicable legal standard for differentiating an
"employee" from an "independent contractor."

In Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989), the Court set forth a test for determining who qualifies as an "employee" under the common
law:

In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's
right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry
are the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship
between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the
hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party's role in hiring and paying
assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; and the
tax treatment of the hired party.

While establishing that all of these factors are relevant and that "no one of these factors is determinative," Reid did not provide guidance on the Page 996
relative weight each factor should be assigned when performing a balancing analysis. Accordingly, all of the Reid factors are relevant, and no one factor is
decisive, but the weight each factor should be accorded depends on the context of the case. Some factors will have "little or no significance in determining
whether a party is an independent contractor or an employee" on the facts of a particular case. In the present case, the FCC erred by failing to consider several
important Reid factors when determining whether Jackson and Timberlake were employees of CBS. And rather than balancing those factors it did consider,
the Commission focused almost exclusively on CBS's right of control over the performers.

Only three factors weigh in favor of a determination that Jackson and Timberlake were employees of CBS. First, CBS is in business, which increases the
possibility that it would employ people. Second, CBS regularly produces shows for national broadcast in the course of its business. Both factors are relatively
insignificant on balance. Third, and most significant to its argument, is the factor the FCC focused on in its orders: CBS's right to control the manner and means
by which Jackson and Timberlake accomplished their Halftime Show performance. As the FCC contends, CBS, through its corporate affiliates, supervised the
Halftime Show and retained the right to approve all aspects of the show's performances. But it is undisputed that CBS's actual control over the Halftime Show
performances did not extend to all aspects of the performers' work. The performers, not CBS, provided their own choreography and retained substantial latitude
to develop the visual performances that would accompany their songs. Similarly, as the FCC notes, CBS personnel reviewed the performers' selections of set
items and wardrobes, but the performers retained discretion to make those choices in the first instance and provided some of their own materials.

CBS's control was extensive but not determinative of employment. Even though a principal's right to control is an important factor weighing in favor of a
determination that an employment relationship existed, it is not dispositive when considered on balance with the rest of the Reid factors. Of the remaining
factors significant on the facts here, all are strongly indicative of Jackson and Timberlake's independent contractor status. First, it is undisputed that both
Jackson and
Timberlake were hired for brief, one-time performances during the Halftime Show; CBS could not assign more work to the performers.* Second, Jackson and
Timberlake selected and hired their own choreographers, backup dancers, and other assistants without any involvement on the part of CBS.

Third, Jackson and Timberlake were compensated by one-time, lump-sum contractual payments and "promotional considerations" rather than by salaries or
other similar forms of remittances, without the provision of employee benefits. Fourth, the skill required of a performer hired to sing and dance as the headlining
act for the Halftime Show—a performance during a Super Bowl broadcast, as the FCC notes, that attracted nearly 90 million viewers and was the highest-rated
show during the 2()()3-()4 television season—is substantial even relative to the job of a general entertainer, which is itself a skilled occupation.

Also weighing heavily in favor of Jackson and Timberlake's status as independent contractors is CBS's assertion in its briefs, which the FCC does not refute, that
it paid no employment tax. 1--1ad the performers been employees rather than independent contractors, federal law would have required CBS to pay such taxes.

Finally, there is no evidence that Jackson, Timberlake, or CBS considered their contractual relationships to be those of employer-employee. In Reid, the Court
incorporated the Restatement, describing it as "setting forth a nonexhaustive list of factors relevant to determining whether a hired party is an employee"
under the common law of agency. Among the factors not explicitly listed in Reid, but included in the Restatement, is the parties' understanding of their
contractual relationship. See Restatement (Third) ofAgency 7.07 cmt. f (including as an explicit factor in determining employment status "whether the
principal and the agent believe that they are creating an employment relationship"). Although the Commission did not inquire into this factor, it should have
been a significant consideration in this case. Under the FCC's rationale, band members contracted to play a one-song set on a talk show or a "one-show-only"
televised concert special presumably would be employees of the broadcaster. These performers—who frequently promote their work through brief contractual
relationships with media outlets—would be "employees" of dozens of employers every year. Accordingly, it is doubtful that either the performers here or
CBS believed their contracts created employment relationships.

On balance, the relevant factors here weigh heavily in favor of a determination that Jackson and Timberlake were independent contractors rather than employees
of CBS. Accordingly, the doctrine of respondeat superior does not apply on these facts.

FCC order vacated in favor of CBS.

In a recent survey, 56​% of employed adults reported that basic mathematical skills were critical. A supervisor thinks this percentage has increased due to increased use of technology in the workplace. She takes a random sample of 470 employed adults and finds that 281 of them feel that basic mathematical skills are critical or very important to their job. Test her hypothesis at the α=0.05 level of significance.

What is the test statistics?

What is the critical value?

Estimate the left boundary of a 95% confidence interval of the population proportion.

also if there is any way someone can show me how to do this on a ti-84 calculator, I would appreciate it! Thank you!

Aspherical container of inner radius r1 2 m, outer radius r2 2.1 m, and thermal conductivity k 30 W/m · °C is filled with iced water at 0°C. The container is gaining heat by convection from the surrounding air at T
25°C with a heat transfer coefficient of h 18 W/m2 · °C. Assuming the inner surface temperature of the container to be 0°C, (a) express the differential equation and the boundary conditions for steady one-dimensional heat conduction through the container, (b) obtain a relation for the variation of temperature in the container by solving the differential equation, and (c) evaluate the rate of heat gain to the iced water

An insulated tank containing 0.5m3 of R-134 at 500 kPa and 90% quality is connected to an initially evacuated insulated piston-cylinder device. The force balance on the piston is such that a pressure of 120kPa is required to lift the piston. The valve is then opened slightly and part of the refrigerant flows to the cylinder, pushing the piston up and the final cylinder volume is 1.5 m 3 . The process ends when the pressure in the tank drops to 120kPa. Assume the refrigerant in the tank undergoes an isentropic process. (a) Determine the quality in the tank and the cylinder. 0.896, 0.92 (b) Calculate the boundary work 280.8 kJ (Expansion) (c) Determine the entropy generated during the process 0.1973 kJ/K

You are a Coronavirus-prevention consultant analyzing the football stadium. You are reviewing past aerial footage of a crowd rushing from the stadium onto a field after a game. You can think of the seating area as a container and the field as another container, with a boundary between. (A) If you think of this as a diffusion problem (two dimensional), how would you calculate the flux in the system? (B) Would you use Fick’s first law or Fick’s second law to describe the mass transport? Explain your reasoning. (C) If all of the people end up on the field at long times, would it be accurate to model this crowd movement as diffusion? Explain your reasoning.

Because I'm trying to learn how to solve this kind of problem in the future please show all intermediate steps so I can follow Suppose F= <xy+y, x-y^2> Let R be the triangular regiorn bounded by the curves y=x, y=4-x, and y=0, Let C be the boundary of this region, oriented counterclock wise.

a) Can you use Fundamental theorem for Line integrals to find ∮ F•dr? explain why or why not? What are the other two possible methods of finding this line integral ?

b) Find the easiest method to calculate ∮ F•dr and then evaluate the line integral using this method