13549

Full download solution manual or testbank at testbankdeal.
com
Elementary Statistics 6th Edition Allan Bluman

Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/elementary-statistics-6th-
edition-allan-bluman-solutions-manual/
OR CLICK HERE
DOWNLOAD NOW
Download more solution manual or test bank from https://testbankdeal.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...
Elementary Statistics A Brief 6th Edition Bluman Solutions

Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/elementary-statistics-a-brief-6th-
edition-bluman-solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com
Elementary Statistics A Brief 6th Edition Bluman Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/elementary-statistics-a-brief-6th-
edition-bluman-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
Elementary Statistics A Step Step Approach 10th Edition

Bluman Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/elementary-statistics-a-step-step-
approach-10th-edition-bluman-solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com
Finite Mathematics 6th Edition Waner Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/finite-mathematics-6th-edition-waner-
test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
International Management 7th Edition Deresky Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/international-management-7th-edition-
deresky-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
Introduction to Mechanical Engineering SI Edition 4th

Edition Wickert Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduction-to-mechanical-
engineering-si-edition-4th-edition-wickert-solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com
Managerial Accounting Tools for Business Decision Making

Canadian 4th Edition Weygandt Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/managerial-accounting-tools-for-
business-decision-making-canadian-4th-edition-weygandt-solutions-
manual/
testbankdeal.com
New Perspectives on Computer Concepts 2018 Introductory

20th Edition Parsons Solutions Manual
https://testbankdeal.com/product/new-perspectives-on-computer-
concepts-2018-introductory-20th-edition-parsons-solutions-manual/
testbankdeal.com
Transportation A Supply Chain Perspective 7th Edition

Coyle Test Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/transportation-a-supply-chain-
perspective-7th-edition-coyle-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
Mosbys Pharmacology in Nursing 22nd Edition McKenry Test
Bank
https://testbankdeal.com/product/mosbys-pharmacology-in-nursing-22nd-
edition-mckenry-test-bank/
testbankdeal.com
Chapter 8 - Hypothesis Testing
Note: Graphs are not to scale and are 7.

intended to convey a general idea. Answers Type I is represented by !, type II is
may vary due to rounding. represented by " .
EXERCISE SET 8-2 8.

When the difference between the sample
1. mean and the hypothesized mean is large,
The null hypothesis is a statistical hypothesis then the difference is said to be significant
that states there is no difference between a and probably not due to chance.
parameter and a specific value or there is no
difference between two parameters. The 9.
alternative hypothesis specifies a specific A one-tailed test should be used when a
difference between a parameter and a specific direction, such as greater than or
specific value, or that there is a difference less than, is being hypothesized, whereas
between two parameters. Examples will when no direction is specified, a two-tailed
vary. test should be used.
2. 10.
Type I error occurs by rejecting the null The steps in hypothesis testing are:
hypothesis when it is true. Type II error 1. State the hypotheses.
occurs when the null hypothesis is not 2. Find the critical value(s).
rejected and it is false. They are related in 3. Compute the test statistic value.
that decreasing the probability of one type of 4. Make the decision.
error increases the probability of the other 5. Summarize the results.
type of error.
11.
3. Hypotheses can only be proved true when
A statistical test uses the data obtained from the entire population is used to compute the
a sample to make a decision as to whether or test statistic. In most cases, this is
not the null hypothesis should be rejected. impossible.
4. 12.
A one-tailed test indicates the null a. „ 1.96
hypothesis should be rejected when the test
statistic value is in the critical region on one
side of the mean. A two-tailed test indicates
the null hypothesis should be rejected when
the test statistic value is in either critical
region on both sides of the mean.
5.
 1.96 0  1.96
The critical region is the region of values of
the test-statistic that indicates a significant
b.  2.33
difference and the null hypothesis should be
rejected. The non-critical region is the
region of values of the test-statistic that
indicates the difference was probably due to
chance, and the null hypothesis should not
be rejected.
6.
"H! " represents the null hypothesis. "H" "  2.33 0
represents the alternative hypothesis.
125
12. continued 12. continued

c.  2.58 h. „ 2.58
0  2.58  2.58 0  2.58
d.  2.33 i.  1.75
0  2.33  1.75 0
e.  1.65 j.  2.05
 1.65 0 0  2.05
f.  2.05 13.
a. H! : . œ 24.6
H" : . Á 24.6
b. H! : . œ $51,497
H" : . Á $51,497
c. H! : . Ÿ 25.4
H" : .  25.4
 2.05 0
d. H! : . 88
g.  1.65
H" : .  88
e. H! : . 70
H" : .  70
f. H! : . œ $79.95
H" : . Á $79.95
0  1.65 g. H! : . œ 8.2
H" : . Á 8.2
126
EXERCISE SET 8-3 3. continued
1.
H! : . œ $69.21 (claim)
H" : . Á $69.21
C. V. œ „ 1.96
z œ X5 . œ $68.433.72
$69.21
œ  1.15 0 1.65 Å
Èn È30
1.85
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

evidence to support the claim that the
average revenue exceeds $24 billion.
4.
 1.96 Å 0  1.96 H! : . Ÿ $12,837
 1.15 H" : .  $12,837 (claim)
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is C. V. œ 1.65

not enough evidence to reject the claim that
z œ X5 . œ 14,4451500
12,837
œ 7.11
the average cost of a hotel stay in Atlanta is Èn È44
$69.21.
2.
H! : . $3262
H1 : .  $3262 (claim)
C. V. œ  1.65
0 1.65 Å
z œ X5 . œ 29951100
3262
œ  1.72 7.11
Èn È50

average salary is more than $12,837.
5.
H! : . 14
Å  1.65 0 H" : .  14 (claim)
 1.72
C. V. œ  2.33
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough z œ Xs . œ 11.82.714 œ  4.89
evidence to support the claim that the Èn È36
average debt is less than $3262.
3.
H! : . Ÿ $24 billion
H1: .  $24 billion (claim)
C. V. œ  1.65 X œ $31.5 s œ $28.7

Å  2.33 0
z œ X5 . œ 31.528.724 œ 1.85  4.89
Èn È50

average age of the planes in the executive's
airline is less than the national average.
127
6. 8. continued
H! : . Ÿ 3000 z œ Xs . œ $96,321$9555
$91,600
œ 4.94
Èn È100
H" : .  3000 (claim)
C. V. œ 1.65
z œ X5 . œ 3120578
3000
œ 1.61
Èn È60
0 1.65 Å
4.94

0 Å 1.65 average income is greater than $91,600.
1.61
9.
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is H! : . Ÿ $19,410
not enough evidence to support the claim H" : .  $19,410 (claim)
that the average production has increased.
C. V. œ 2.33
7. z œ X5 . œ $22,0986050
$19,410
œ 2.81
Èn È40
H! : . œ 29
H" : . Á 29 (claim)
C. V. œ „ 1.96 X œ 29.45 s œ 2.61

z œ X5 . œ 29.45 29
2.61 œ 0.944
Èn È30
0 2.33 Å
2.81

average tuition cost has increased.
1.96 0 Å 1.96
10.
0.944
H! : . œ $60,000 (claim)
H" : . Á $60,000
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
enough evidence to reject the claim that the
C. V. œ „ 1.96 X œ $82,496
average height differs from 29 inches.
s œ $76,025
8. z œ X5 . œ 8249676,025
60,000
œ 1.78
Èn È36
H! : . Ÿ $91,600
H" : .  $91,600 (claim)
C. V. œ 1.65
 1.96 0 Å 1.96
1.78
128

the average price of a home is $60,000.
11.
H! : . œ 125
H" : . Á 125 (claim)
 2.33 Å 0 2.33
 2.28
C. V. œ „ 2.58
z œ X5 . œ 110
30
125
œ  2.96 Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
Èn È35
not enough evidence to support the claim
that the amount spent at a local mall is not
equal to the national average of $24.44.
14.
The P value is the actual probability of
getting the sample mean if the null
 2.58 0 2.58 hypothesis is true.
Å  2.96
15.
Reject the null hypothesis. There is a a. Do not reject.
significant difference in the average number b. Reject.
of guests. c. Do not reject.
d. Reject
12. e. Reject
H! : . œ $39,385
H" : . Á $39,385 (claim) 16.
H0 : . œ 52 (claim)
C. V. œ „ 1.96 H1 : . Á 52
z œ X5 . œ $41,6805975
$39,385
œ 2.72 z œ Xs . œ 56.33.552 œ 8.69
Èn È50
Èn È50
The area corresponding to z œ 8.69 is

 0.4999. Then P-value  0.01. Hence,
the null hypothesis should be rejected.
There is enough evidence to reject the claim
that the mean is 52. The researcher's claim
 1.96 0 1.96 Å is not valid.
2.72
17.
Reject the null hypothesis. There is a H! : . 264
significant difference in the salaries. H" : .  264 (claim)
z œ X5 . œ 262.33264 œ  2.53
Èn È20
13.
H0 : . œ $24.44
The area corresponding to z œ 2.53 is
H" : . Á $24.44 (claim)
0.4943. The P-value is 0.5  0.4943 œ
0.0057. The decision is to reject the null
C. V. œ „ 2.33
hypothesis since 0.0057  0.01. There is
z œ Xs . œ 22.973.70
24.44
œ  2.28 enough evidence to support the claim that
Èn È33
the average stopping distance is less than
264 feet.
129
18. 21. continued

H! : . 40 The decision is to reject the null hypothesis
H" : .  40 (claim) since P-value  0.05. There is enough
X œ 29.3 s œ 30.9 evidence to support the claim that the mean
z œ X5 . œ 29.330.940 œ  2.45 is less than 47.1 acres.
Èn È50
22.
The area corresponding to z œ 2.45 is H! : . œ 65 (claim)
0.4929. The P-value is 0.5  0.4929 œ H" : . Á 65
0.0071. The decision is reject the null
z œ X5 . œ 63.2765 œ  1.21
hypothesis since 0.0071  0.01. There is Èn È22
enough evidence to support the claim that

the average number of copies is less than 40. The area corresponding to z œ  1.21 is
0.3869. The P-value is 2(0.5  0.3869) œ
19. 2(0.1131) œ 0.2262. The decision is do not
H! : . 546 reject the null hypothesis since
H" : .  546 (claim) 0.2262  0.10. Hence, there is not enough
z œ X5 . œ 544.83546 œ  2.4 evidence to reject the claim that the average
Èn È36
is 65 acres.
The area corresponding to z œ  2.4 is 23.

0.4918. The P-value is 0.5  0.4918 œ H! : . œ 30,000 (claim)
0.0082. The decision is to reject the null H" : . Á 30,000
hypothesis since 0.0082  0.01. There is
z œ Xs . œ 30,4561684
30,000
œ 1.71
enough evidence to support the claim that Èn È40
the number of calories burned is less than

546. The area corresponding to z œ 1.71 is
0.4564. The P-value is 2(0.5  0.4564) œ
20. 2(0.0436) œ 0.0872. The decision is to
H! : . œ 800 (claim) reject the null hypothesis at ! œ 0.10 since
H" : . Á 800 0.0872  0.10. The conclusion is that there
z œ X5 . œ 793
12
800
œ  2.61 is enough evidence to reject the claim that
Èn È200
customers are adhering to the
recommendation. A 0.10 significance level
The area corresponding to z œ 2.61 is is probably appropriate since there is little
0.4955. The P-value is found by subtracting consequence of a Type I error. The dealer
the area from 0.5 then multiplying by 2 since would be advised to increase efforts to make
this is a two-tailed test. Hence, its customers aware of the service
2(0.5  0.4955) œ 2(0.0045) œ 0.0090. recommendation.
The decision is to reject the null hypothesis
since 0.009  0.01. There is enough 24.
evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the H0 : . œ 60 (claim)
breaking strength is 800 pounds. H1 : . Á 60
21. X œ 59.93 s œ 13.42

H! : . 47.1
z œ Xs . œ 59.9360
13.42œ  0.03
H" : .  47.1 (claim) Èn È30
z œ X5 . œ 43.28.6
47.1
œ  3.21
Èn È50
The area corresponding to 0.03 is 0.0120.
The P-value is 2(0.5  0.0120) œ 0.976.
The area corresponding to z œ 3.21 is Since 0.976 > 0.05, the decision is do not
 0.4999. To get the P-value, subtract reject the null hypothesis. There is not
0.4999 from 0.5 and then multiply by 2 since enough evidence to reject the claim that the
this is a two-tailed test. average number of speeding tickets is 60.
2(0.5  0.4999) œ 2(0.0001) œ 0.0002. thus
the P-value is less than 0.0002.
130
25. EXERCISE SET 8-4

H0 : . 10
H" : .  10 (claim) 1.
It is bell-shaped, symmetric about the mean,
X œ 5.025 s œ 3.63 and it never touches the x axis. The mean,
z œ Xs . œ 5.02510
3.63 œ  8.67 median, and mode are all equal to 0 and they
Èn È40
are located at the center of the distribution.
The t distribution differs from the standard
The area corresponding to 8.67 is greater normal distribution in that it is a family of
than 0.4999. The P-value is curves, the variance is greater than one, and
0.5  0.4999  0.0001. Since 0.0001 < as the degrees of freedom increase the t
0.05, the decision is to reject the null distribution approaches the standard normal
hypothesis. There is enough evidence to distribution.
support the claim that the average number of
days missed per year is less than 10. 2.
The degrees of freedom are the number of
26. values that are free to vary after a sample
Reject the claim at ! œ 0.05 but not at statistic has been computed. They tell the
! œ 0.01. There is no contradiction since researcher which specific curve to use when
the value of ! should be chosen before the a distribution consists of a family of curves.
test is conducted.
3.
27. a. d. f. œ 9 C. V. œ  1.833
The mean and standard deviation are found b. d. f. œ 17 C. V. œ „ 1.740
as follows: c. d. f. œ 5 C. V. œ  3.365
d. d. f. œ 8 C. V. œ  2.306
f Xm f † Xm f † X#m e. d. f. œ 14 C. V. œ „ 2.145
8.35 - 8.43 2 8.39 16.78 140.7842 f. d. f. œ 22 C. V. œ  2.819
8.44 - 8.52 6 8.48 50.88 431.4624 g. d. f. œ 27 C. V. œ „ 2.771
8.53 - 8.61 12 8.57 102.84 881.3388 h. d. f. œ 16 C. V. œ „ 2.583
8.62 - 8.70 18 8.66 155.88 1349.9208
8.71 - 8.79 10 8.75 87.5 765.625 4.
8.80 - 8.88 2 8.84 17.68 156.2912 a. 0.01 < P-value < 0.025 (0.018)
50 431.56 3725.4224 b. 0.05 < P-value < 0.10 (0.062)
c. 0.10 < P-value < 0.25 (0.123)
!f†Xm 431.56 d. 0.10 < P-value < 0.20 (0.138)
Xœ n
œ 50
œ 8.63
e. P-value < 0.005 (0.003)
!( f†Xm ) f. 0.10 < P-value < 0.25 (0.158)
É !f†X#m  n œÉ
# #
3725.4224 (431.56)
sœ n1 49
50
g. P-value œ 0.05 (0.05)
h. P-value > 0.25 (0.261)
œ 0.105
5.
H0 : . œ 8.65 (claim) H0 : . 11.52
H1 : . Á 8.65 H" : .  11.52 (claim)
C. V. œ „ 1.96 C. V. œ  1.833 d. f. œ 9
z œ Xs . œ 8.630.105
8.65
œ  1.35
Èn È50 X. 7.4211.52
tœ s œ 1.3 œ  9.97
Èn È10

the average hourly wage of the employees is
$8.65.
131
5. continued 8.
H0 : . 25.4
H1 : .  25.4 (claim)
C. V. œ  1.318 d. f. œ 24
t œ Xs . œ 22.15.3
25.4
œ  3.11
Èn È25
Å  1.833 0
 9.97

rainfall is below average.
Å  1.318 0
6.  3.11
H! : . 2000
H" : .  2000 (claim) Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough
C. V. œ  3.747 d. f. œ 4 commute time is less than 25.4 minutes.
X œ 1885.8 s œ 2456.3
9.
t œ Xs . œ 1885.8 2000
2456.3 œ  0.104
Èn È5 H0 : . 700 (claim)
H" : .  700
X œ 606.5 s œ 109.1
C. V. œ  2.262 d. f. œ 9
t œ Xs . œ 606.5700
109.1 œ  2.71
Èn È10
 3.747 Å0
 0.104

that the average acreage is less than 2000.
Å  2.262 0
7.  2.71
H0 : . œ $40,000
H1 : . Á $40,000 (claim) Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough
evidence to reject the claim that the average
C. V. œ „ 2.093 d. f. œ 19 height of the buildings is at least 700 feet.
t œ Xs . œ 43,2284000
40,000
œ 3.61
Èn È20 10.
H! : . œ $17.63 (claim)
H" : . Á $17.63
C. V. œ „ 2.145 d. f. œ 14
t œ Xs . œ 18.723.64
17.63
œ 1.16
Èn È15
 2.093 0 2.093 Å
3.61

average salary is not $40,000.
132
10. continued 13.

H! : . Ÿ $54.8
H1 : .  $54.8 (claim)
C. V. œ 1.761 d. f. œ 14
t œ Xs . œ $62.3$9.5
$54.8
œ 3.06
Èn È15
 2.145 0 Å 2.145
1.16

there is no difference in the rates.
0 1.761 Å
11. 3.06
H! : . Ÿ $13,252
H" : .  $13,252 (claim) Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough
evidence to support the claim that the cost to
C. V. œ 2.539 d. f. œ 19 produce an action movie is more than $54.8
X. $15,560$13,252 million.
tœ s œ $3500 œ 2.95
Èn È19
14.
H! : . Ÿ 110
H" : .  110 (claim)
X œ 137.33 s œ 24.1178
C. V. œ 2.624 d. f. œ 14
X. 137.3110
0 2.539 Å t œ s œ 24.1178 œ 4.38
Èn È15
2.95

average tuition cost has increased.
12.
H! : . œ $91,600 0 2.624 Å
H" : . Á $91,600 (claim) 4.38
C. V. œ „ 1.703 d. f. œ 27 Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

t œ Xs . œ $88,500$91,600
œ  1.64 evidence to support the claim that the
$10,000
Èn È28 average calorie content is greater than 110.
15.
H! : . œ 132 min. (claim)
H" : . Á 132 min.
C. V. œ „ 2.365 d. f. œ 7
 1.703 Å 0 1.703 t œ Xs . œ 125
11
132
œ  1.80
Èn È8
 1.64
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is enough evidence to support the claim that
not enough evidence to support the claim the average show time is 132 minutes, or 2
that the average income differs from hours and 12 minutes.
$91,600.
133
16. 19. continued

H0 : . œ 123
H" : . Á 123 (claim)
d. f. œ 15
P-value < 0.01 (0.0086)
t œ Xs . œ 1195.3
123
œ  3.02
Èn È16
Since P-value < 0.05, reject the null  2.201 Å 0 2.201

hypothesis. There is enough evidence to  1.10
support the claim that the mean is not 123
gallons. Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
not enough evidence to say that the average
17. stipend differs from $15,000.
H! : . œ 5.8
H" : . Á 5.8 (claim) 20.
X œ 3.85 s œ 2.52 H0 : . œ 3.18
d. f. œ 19 ! œ 0.05 H" : . Á 3.18 (claim)
P-value < 0.01 (0.0026)
t œ Xs . œ 3.852.52
5.8
œ  3.46 X œ 3.833 s œ 1.434563
Èn È20 d. f. œ 23 C. V. œ „ 2.069
Since P-value < 0.01, reject the null tœ X.

s œ 3.8333.18
1.434563 œ 2.23
Èn È24
hypothesis. There is enough evidence to
support the claim that the mean is not 5.8.
18.
H0 : . œ 9.2 (claim)
H" : . Á 9.2
X œ 8.25 s œ 5.06
d. f. œ 7  2.069 0 2.069 Å
P-value > 0.50 (0.6121) 2.23
t œ Xs . œ 8.255.06
9.2
œ  0.531
Èn È8
Since P-value > 0.50, do not reject the null evidence to support the claim that the
hypothesis. There is enough evidence to average family size differs from the national
support the claim that the mean number of average.
jobs is 9.2. One reason why a person may
not give the exact number of jobs is that he EXERCISE SET 8-5
or she may have forgotten about a particular
job. 1.
Answers will vary.
19.
H0 : . œ $15,000 2.
H" : . Á $15,000 (claim) The proportion of A items can be considered
a success whereas the proportion of items
X œ $14,347.17 s œ $2048.54 that are not included in A can be considered
d. f. œ 11 C. V. œ „ 2.201 a failure.
X. $14,347.17$15,000 3.
tœ s œ œ  1.10
Èn
$2048.54
È12 np 5 and nq 5
4.
. œ np 5 œ Ènpq
134
5. 7. continued
H! : p œ 0.647 Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
H" : p Á 0.647 (claim) not enough evidence to conclude that the
proportion differs from 40%.
92
p œ 150
s œ 0.613 p œ 0.647 q œ 0.353
C. V. œ „ 2.58 8.
H! : p Ÿ 0.279
zœ p p
s
œ 0.6130.647
œ  0.86 H" : p  0.279 (claim)
É pq
n É (0.647)(0.353)
150
45
p œ 120
s œ 0.375 p œ 0.279 q œ 0.721
C. V. œ 1.65
p p
z œ s œ 0.375 0.279
œ 2.35
Épq
n É(0.279)(0.721)
120
 2.58 Å 0 2.58
 0.86

not enough evidence to support the claim 0 1.65 Å
that the proportion of homeowners is 2.35
different from 64.7%.
6. evidence to conclude that the proportion of
H0 : p œ 0.488 female physicians at the university health
H" : p Á 0.488 (claim) system is higher than 27.9%.
142
pœ
s 250
œ 0.568 p œ 0.488 q œ 0.512 9.
H! : p œ 0.63 (claim)
zœ p p
s
œ 0.5680.488
œ 2.53 H" : p Á 0.63
É pq
n É (0.488)(0.512)
250
85
p œ 143
s œ 0.5944 p œ 0.63 q œ 0.37
Since the p-value œ 0.0114, it can be C. V. œ „ 1.96
concluded that the null hypothesis would be p p
z œ s œ 0.5944 0.63
œ  0.88
rejected for any ! Ÿ 0.0114. Épq
n É
(0.63)(0.37)
143
7.
H! : p œ 0.40
H" : p Á 0.40 (claim)
65
p œ 180
s œ 0.361 p œ 0.40 q œ 0.60
C. V. œ „ 2.58  1.96 Å 0 1.96
p p
z œ s œ 0.361 0.40
œ  1.07  0.88
Épq
n
É
(0.40)(0.60)
180

the percentage is the same.
10.
H! : p œ 0.17 (claim)
 2.58 Å 0 2.58 H" : p Á 0.17
 1.07
p œ 22
s 90 œ 0.2444
p œ 0.17 q œ 0.83
C. V. œ „ 1.96
135
10. continued 13.

p p
z œ s œ 0.2444 0.17
œ 1.88 H! : p œ 0.54 (claim)
Épq
É
(0.17)(0.83)
n 90 H" : p Á 0.54
36
pœ
s 60
œ 0.6 p œ 0.54 q œ 0.46
p p
s 0.54
zœ œ 0.6(0.54)(0.46) œ 0.93
É pq
n É 60
Area œ 0.3238
P-value œ 2(0.5  0.3238) œ 0.3524
 1.96 0 Å 1.96 Since P-value > 0.01, do not reject the null
1.88 hypothesis. There is enough evidence to
support the claim that 54% of kids had a
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is snack after school. Yes, a healthy snack
not enough evidence to reject the claim that should be made available for children to eat
the percentage is the same. after school.
11. 14.
H0 : p œ 0.54 H! : p œ 0.517 (claim)
H" : p Á 0.54 (claim) H" : p Á 0.517
115
p œ 14
s pœ
s œ 0.575 p œ 0.517 q œ 0.483
30 œ 0.4667
p œ 0.54 q œ 0.46 200
p p
s 0.517
C. V. œ „ 1.96 zœ œ 0.575 œ 1.64
É pq
n É (0.517)(0.483)
200
p p
z œ s œ 0.4667 0.54
œ  0.81 Area œ 0.4495
É pq
n É
(0.54)(0.46)
30
P-value œ 2(0.5  0.4495) œ 0.101
Since P-value > 0.05, do not reject the null
hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to
reject the claim that 51.7% of homes in
America were heated by natural gas. The
evidence supports the claim. The conclusion
could be different if the sample is taken in an
 1.96 Å 0 1.96 area where natural gas is not commonly used
 0.81 to heat homes.
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is 15.

not enough evidence to reject the claim that H! : p œ 0.18 (claim)
54% of fatal car/truck accidents are caused H" : p Á 0.18
by driver error.
50
pœ
s 300
œ 0.1667 p œ 0.18 q œ 0.82
12. zœ p p
s
œ 0.1667 0.18
œ  0.60
H0 : p œ 0.14 (claim) É pq
n É(0.18)(0.82)
300
H" : p Á 0.14 Area œ 0.2257

P-value œ 2(0.5  0.2257) œ 0.5486
10
pœ
s 100
œ 0.10 p œ 0.14 q œ 0.86 Since P-value > 0.05, do not reject the null
zœ p p
s
œ 0.10 0.14
œ  1.15 hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to
É pq
n É (0.14)(0.86)
100 reject the claim that 18% of all high school
Area œ 0.3749 students smoke at least a pack of cigarettes a
P-value œ 2(0.5  0.3749) œ 0.2502 day.
hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to 16.
reject the claim that 14% of men use H! : p 0.83
exercise to relieve stress. The results cannot H" : p  0.83 (claim)
be generalized to all adults since only men
were surveyed. p^ œ 40
50 œ 0.8
p œ 0.83 q œ 0.17
C. V. œ  1.75
136

p p
z œ s 0.83
œ 0.8(0.83)(0.17) œ  0.56 Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
Épq
É
n 50 not enough evidence to support the claim
that the percentage of paid assistantships is
below 60%.
19.
H0 : p 0.576
H1 : p  0.576 (claim)
 1.75 Å 0
 0.56 p^ œ 17
36
œ 0.472 p œ 0.576 q œ 0.424
C. V. œ  1.65
p p
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is z œ s œ 0.472 0.576
œ  1.26
É pq
É (0.576)(0.424)
not enough evidence to support the claim n 36
that the percentage is less than 83%.
17.
H! : p œ 0.67
H" : p Á 0.67 (claim)
p^ œ 100
82
œ 0.82 p œ 0.67 q œ 0.33  1.65 Å 0
C. V. œ „ 1.96  1.26
p p
z œ s œ 0.82 0.67
œ 3.19
É pq
É (0.67)(0.33)
n 100 Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
that the percentage of injuries during
practice is below 57.6%.
20.
H! : p 0.45
 1.96 0 1.96 Å H" : p  0.45 (claim)
3.19
p^ œ 150
58
œ 0.3867 p œ 0.45 q œ 0.55
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough C. V. œ  1.65
p p
evidence to support the claim that the z œ s œ 0.3867 0.45
œ  1.56
É pq
n É (0.45)(0.55)
150
percentage is not 67%.
18.
H! : p 0.6
H" : p  0.6 (claim)
p^ œ 26
50 œ 0.52 p œ 0.6 q œ 0.4
C. V. œ  1.65  1.65 Å 0
p p
z œ s 0.6
œ 0.52(0.6)(0.4 œ  1.15  1.56
É pq
n É 50

that the proportion is below 45%.
21.
This represents a binomial distribution with
 1.65 Å 0 p œ 0.50 and n œ 9. The P-value is
 1.15 2 † P(X Ÿ 3) œ 2(0.254) œ 0.508.
137

Since P-value  0.10, the conclusion that c. H! : 5 # œ 225
the coin is not balanced is probably H" : 5 # Á 225
false.
C. V. œ 5.629, 26.119 d. f. œ 14
22.
This represents a binomial distribution with
p œ 0.20 and n œ 15. The P-value is
2 † T Ð\  &) œ 2(0.061) œ 0.122, which is
greater than ! œ 0.10. There is not enough
evidence to conclude that the proportions
have changed.
0 5.629 26.119
23.
H. d. H! : 5 # œ 225
zœ 5 H" : 5 # Á 225
Hnp
zœ Ènpq C. V. œ 2.167, 14.067 d. f. œ 7
H np
n n
zœ 1 Ènpq
n
H np
n n
zœ
É n#
npq
zœ p p
s 0 2.167 14.067
É pq
n
e. H! : 5 # Ÿ 225
EXERCISE SET 8-6 H" : 5 #  225
1. C. V. œ 32.000 d. f. œ 16
a. H! : 5 # Ÿ 225
H" : 5 #  225
C. V. œ 27.587 d. f. œ 17
0 32.000
f. H! : 5 # 225
H" : 5 #  225
0 27.587
C. V. œ 8.907 d. f. œ 19
b. H! : 5 # ##&
H" : 5 #  225
C. V. œ 14.042 d. f. œ 22
0 8.907
g. H! : 5 # œ 225
H" : 5 # Á 225
0 14.042
C. V. œ 3.074, 28.299 d. f. œ 12
138
1g. continued 4.
H! : 5 # Ÿ 140
H" : 5 #  140 (claim)
C. V. œ 26.217 ! œ 0.01 d. f. œ 12
(n1)s# (131)(146)
;# œ 5#
œ 140
œ 12.514
0 3.074 28.299
h. H! : 5 # 225
H" : 5 #  225
C. V. œ 15.308 d. f. œ 28
0 Å 26.217
12.514

that the variance is greater than 140.
0 15.308 Weather conditions can affect the number of
forest fires.
2.
a. 0.01 < P-value < 0.025 (0.015) 5.
b. 0.005 < P-value < 0.01 (0.006) H! : 5 15
c. 0.01 < P-value < 0.025 (0.012) H" : 5  15 (claim)
d. P-value < 0.005 (0.003)
e. 0.025 < P-value < 0.05 (0.037) C. V. œ 4.575 ! œ 0.05 d. f. œ 14
f. 0.05 < P-value < 0.10 (0.088)
(n1)s# (151)(13.6)#
g. 0.05 < P-value < 0.10 (0.066) ;# œ 5#
œ 15#
œ 9.0425
h. P-value < 0.01 (0.007)
3.
H! : 5 œ 60 (claim)
H" : 5 Á 60
C. V. œ 8.672, 27.587 ! œ 0.10

0 4.575 Å
d. f. œ 17
9.0425
s œ 64.6
# 1)(64.6)#
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (18(60)# œ 19.707 Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
that the standard deviation is less than 15.
6.
H! : 5 10
H" : 5  10 (claim)
0 8.672 Å 27.587
19.707 C. V. œ 8.672 ! œ 0.05 d. f. œ 17
(n1)s# (181)(72.222)
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is ;# œ 5#
œ 10
œ 12.278
the standard deviation is 60.
139
0 8.672 Å 0 36.191 Å
12.278 58.55
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough
not enough evidence to support the claim evidence to support the claim that the
that the standard deviation of the weights is standard deviation is more than 20 calories.
less than 10 pounds.
10.
7. H! : 5 10
H! : 5 Ÿ 1.2 (claim) H" : 5  10 (claim)
H" : 5  1.2
s œ 5.407
! œ 0.01 d. f. œ 14 C. V. œ 2.204 ! œ 0.10 d. f. œ 6
# 1)(1.8)# # (71)(5.407)#
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (15(1.2)# œ 31.5 ;# œ (n51)s
# œ 20#
œ 1.754
P-value < 0.005 (0.0047)
Since P-value < 0.01, reject the null

reject the claim that the standard deviation is
less than or equal to 1.2 minutes.
0 Å 2.204
8. 1.754
H! : 5 Ÿ 0.03 (claim)
H" : 5  0.03 Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough
s œ 0.043 standard deviation is less than 10°.
! œ 0.05 d. f. œ 7
# #
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (7(0.043)
0.03#
œ 14.381 11.
0.025 < P-value < 0.05 (0.045) H! : 5 35
H" : 5  35 (claim)
hypothesis. There is enough evidence to C. V. œ 3.940 ! œ 0.05 d. f. œ 10
# (111)(32)#
reject the claim that the standard deviation is ;# œ (n51)s
# œ œ 8.3592
35#
less than or equal to 0.03 ounce.
9.
H! : 5 Ÿ 20
H" : 5  20 (claim)
s œ 35.11
C. V. œ 36.191 ! œ 0.01 d. f. œ 19 0 3.940 Å
# #
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (201)(35.11) œ 58.55 8.3592
20#

that the standard deviation is less than 35.
140
12. 14. continued

H! : 5 Ÿ 8 Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
H" : 5  8 (claim) not enough evidence to support the claim
that the standard deviation exceeds 4.
C. V. œ 55.758 ! œ 0.05 d. f. œ 49
# #
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (501)(10.5)
8#
œ 84.41 EXERCISE SET 8-7
1.
H! : . œ 1800 (claim)
H" : . Á 1800
C. V. œ „ 1.96
z œ X5 . œ 1830200
1800
œ 0.47
0 55.758 Å Èn È10
84.41

standard deviation is more than 8.
13.
 1.96 0 Å 1.96
H! : 5 Ÿ 25
0.47
H" : 5  25 (claim)
The 95% confidence interval of the mean is:
C. V. œ 22.362 ! œ 0.05 d. f. œ 13
# # X  z !2 È5n  .  X  z !2 È5n
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (141)(6.74)
25
œ 23.622
1830  1.96 ˆ È
200
10
).
1830  1.96 ˆ È
200
10
)
1706.04  .  1953.96
The hypothesized mean is within the

0 22.362 Å interval, thus we can be 95% confident that
23.622 the average sales will be between $1706.94
and $1953.96.
evidence to support the claim that the 2.
variance is greater than 25. H! : . œ 42 (claim)
H" : . Á 42
14.
H! : 5 Ÿ 4 C. V. œ „ 1.65
H" : 5  4 (claim) z œ X5 . œ 488 42 œ 2.37
Èn È10
C. V. œ 24.996 ! œ 0.05 d. f. œ 15
# #
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (161)(4.2303)
4# œ 16.777
 1.65 0 1.65 Å
2.37
0 Å 24.996
16.777
141
The 90% confidence interval of the mean is: z œ X5 . œ 427 47 œ  2.26
Èn È10
5 5
Xz !
2 Èn .Xz !
2 Èn
8 8
48  1.65 † È10  .  48  1.65 † È10
43.83  .  52.17
Å  1.65 0 1.65
 2.26
at ! œ 0.10 since 2.37  1.65 and the 90%
confidence interval of the mean does not
The 90% confidence interval of the mean is:
contain the hypothesized mean of 42.
There is agreement between the z-test and X  z !2 È5n  .  X  z !2 È5n
the confidence interval. The conclusion then
is that there is enough evidence to support 7 7
42  1.65 † È10  .  42  1.65 † È10
the claim that the mean time has changed.
3. 38.35  .  45.65
H! : . œ 86 (claim)
H" : . Á 86 The decision is to reject the null hypothesis
since  2.26   1.65 and the confidence
C. V. œ „ 2.58 interval does not contain the hypothesized
z œ X5 . œ 846 86 œ  1.29 mean of 47. There is enough evidence to
Èn È15 support the claim that the mean has changed.
5.
H! : . œ 22
H" : . Á 22 (claim)
C. V. œ „ 2.58
 2.58 Å 0 2.58 z œ X5 . œ 20.8422 œ  2.32
Èn È60
 1.29
X  z !2 È5n  .  X  z !2 È5n
6 6
84  2.58 † È15  .  84  1.58 † È15
80.00  .  88.00  2.58 Å 0 2.58

 2.32
The decision is do not reject the null
hypothesis since  1.29   2.58 and the The 99% confidence interval of the mean is:
99% confidence interval contains the
hypothesized mean. There is not enough X  z !2 È5n  .  X  z !2 È5n
evidence to reject the claim that the monthly
maintenance is $86. 4 4
20.8  2.58 † È60  .  20.8  2.58 † È60
4.
H! : . œ 47 19.47  .  22.13
H" : . Á 47 (claim)
C. V. œ „ 1.65
142
5. continued REVIEW EXERCISES - CHAPTER 8

hypothesis since  2.32   2.58 and the 1.
99% confidence interval does contain the H! : . œ 98° (claim)
hypothesized mean of 22. The conclusion is H" : . Á 98°
that there is not enough evidence to support
the claim that the average studying time has C. V. œ „ 1.96
changed. z œ Xs . œ 95.87.7198 œ  2.02
Èn È50
6.
H! : . œ 10.8 (claim)
H" : . Á 10.8
C. V. œ „ 2.33
z œ X5 . œ 12.23 10.8 œ 2.80
Èn È36
Å  1.96 0 1.96
 2.02

high temperature is 98°.
 2.33 0 2.33 Å 2.
2.80 H! : . œ 500 (claim)
H" : . Á 500
X  z !2 È5n  .  X  z !2 È5n
C. V. œ „ 1.96
12.2  2.33 † 3
 .  12.2  2.33 † 3 z œ Xs . œ 50610.3
500
œ 3.684
È36 È36 Èn È40
11.035  .  13.365

since 2.80  2.33 and the confidence
interval does not contain the hypothesized
mean 10.8. The conclusion is that there is
 1.96 0 1.96 Å
enough evidence to reject the claim that the
3.684
average time a person spends reading a
newspaper is 10.8 minutes.
7.
number of shares traded daily is 500 million.
The power of a statistical test is the
I would disagree with the broker.
probability of rejecting the null hypothesis
when it is false.
3.
H! : . Ÿ $40,000
8.
H" : .  $40,000 (claim)
The power of a test is equal to 1  " where
" is the probability of a type II error.
C. V. œ 1.65
9. z œ X5 . œ $41,000$3000
$40,000
œ 2.00
Èn È36
The power of a test can be increased by
increasing ! or selecting a larger sample
size.
143
evidence to support the claim that 1995 was
warmer than average.
6.
H! : . 32 (claim)
H" : .  32
0 1.65 Å
2.00
d. f. œ 17
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough t œ Xs . œ 31.332
2.8 œ  1.061
Èn È18
average salary is more than $40,000. 0.10 < P-value < 0.25
4. not enough evidence to reject the claim that
H! : . Ÿ $150,000 the average age is 32 years.
H" : .  $150,000 (claim)
7.
C. V. œ 1.895 d. f. œ 7 H! : . œ 6
t œ Xs . œ 155,50015,000
150,000
œ 1.04 H" : . Á 6 (claim)
Èn È8
C. V. œ „ 2.821 X œ 8.42 s œ 4.17

t œ Xs . œ 8.42 6
4.17 œ 1.835
Èn È10
0 Å 1.895
1.04
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is  2.821 0 Å 2.821

not enough evidence to support the claim 1.835
that the average salary is more than
$150,000. Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
5. that the average attendance has changed.
H! : . Ÿ 67
H" : .  67 (claim) 8.
H! : p Ÿ 0.585
C. V. œ 1.383 d. f. œ 9 H" : p  0.585 (claim)
t œ Xs . œ 69.61.1
67.0
œ 7.47
Èn È10
C. V. œ 1.65
622
p œ 1000
s œ 0.622 p œ 0.585 q œ 0.415
p p
s 0.585
z œ pq œ 0.622 œ 2.37
É n É
(0.585)(0.415)
1000
0 1.383 Å
7.47
0 1.65 Å
2.37
144

p p
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough z œ s œ 0.7125 0.65
œ 1.17
Épq
É
(0.65)(0.35)
evidence to support the claim that the n 80
percentage of women working is more than Area œ 0.3790

58.5%. P-value œ 2(0.5  0.3790) œ 0.242
9. hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to
H! : p Ÿ 0.602 reject the claim that 65% of the teenagers
H" : p  0.602 (claim) own their own radios.
C. V. œ 1.65 12.
p œ 0.65 p œ 0.602 q œ 0.398
s H! : . œ 225 (claim)
p p
z œ s œ 0.65 0.602
œ 1.96 H" : . Á 225
Épq
n É
(0.602)(0.398)
400
X. 230225
zœ s œ 15 œ 2.36
È50 È50
Area œ 0.4909
P-value œ 2(0.5  0.4909) œ 0.0182
Since 0.0182  0.01 the decision is do not
reject the null hypothesis. The conclusion is
0 1.65 Å that there is not evidence to reject the claim
1.96 that the mean is 225 pounds.
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough 13.

evidence to support the claim that the H! : . 10
percentage of drug offenders is higher than H" : .  10 (claim)
60.2%.
X. 9.2510
zœ 5 œ 2 œ  2.22
10. Èn È35
H! : p œ 0.41 (claim)
H" : p Á 0.41 Area œ 0.4868
P-value œ 0.5  0.4699 œ 0.0132
C. V. œ „ 2.33 Since 0.0132  0.05, reject the null
p œ 15
s 30 œ 0.5
p œ 0.41 q œ 0.59 hypothesis. The conclusion is that there is
p p
z œ s œ 0.50.41
œ 1.002 enough evidence to support the claim that
É pq
n É
(0.41)(0.59)
30 the average time is less than 10 minutes.
14.
H! : 5 œ 3.4 (claim)
H" : 5 Á 3.4
C. V. œ 11.689, 38.076 d. f. œ 23
# 1)(4.2)#
 2.33 Å 0 2.33 ;# œ (n51)s
# œ (24(3.4)# œ 35.1
 1.002

41% of tennis fans are female.
11.
11.689 Å 38.076
H! : p œ 0.65 (claim)
35.1
H" : p Á 0.65
57
pœ
s 80
œ 0.7125 p œ 0.65 q œ 0.35
145

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
not enough evidence to reject the claim that not enough evidence to reject the claim that
the standard deviation is 3.4 minutes. the standard deviation is 18 minutes.
15. 18.
H! : 5 4.3 (claim) H! : . œ 35 (claim)
H" : 5  4.3 H" : . Á 35
d. f. œ 19 C. V. œ „ 1.65
#
(201)(2.6)#
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (4.3#
œ 6.95 z œ Xs . œ 33.5335 œ  3.00
Èn È36
0.005 < P-value < 0.01 (0.006) The 90% confidence interval of the mean is:
hypothesis. There is enough evidence to X  z !2 È5n  .  X  z !2 È5n
reject the claim that the standard deviation is
greater than or equal to 4.3 miles per gallon. 3 3
33.5  1.65 † È36  .  33.5  1.65 † È36
16.
H0 : 5 œ $95 (claim) 32.675  .  34.325
H1 : 5 Á $95
s œ 89.3 since  3.00   1.65 and the 90%
C. V. œ 6.408, 33.409 d. f. œ 17 confidence interval does not contain the
# #
;# œ (n51)s
# œ (181)(89.3)
95#
œ 15.0212 hypothesized mean of 35. The conclusion is
that there is enough evidence to reject the
claim that the mean is 35 pounds.
19.
H! : . œ 4
H" : . Á 4 (claim)
6.408 Å 33.409 C. V. œ „ 2.58

15.0212 z œ Xs . œ 4.20.64 œ 1.49
Èn È20

not enough evidence to reject the claim that The 99% confidence interval of the mean is:
the standard deviation of rental rates is $95.
X  z !2 È5n  .  X  z !2 È5n
17.
H! : 5 œ 18 (claim) 4.2  2.58 † 0.6
 .  4.2  2.58 † 0.6
È20 È20
H" : 5 Á 18
3.85  .  4.55
C. V. œ 11.143 and 0.484 d. f. œ 4
# (n1)s# (51)(21)# hypothesis since 1.49  2.58 and the
; œ 5#
œ 18#
œ 5.44
confidence interval does contain the
hypothesized mean of 4. There is not
enough evidence to support the claim that
the growth has changed.
CHAPTER 8 QUIZ
0.484 Å 11.143 1. True

5.44 2. True
146
3. False, the critical value separates the 20. continued

critical region from the noncritical region. H" : .  12.4 (claim)
4. True C. V. œ  1.345
5. False, it can be one-tailed or two-tailed. t œ  2.324
6. b. Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough
7. d. evidence to support the claim that the
8. c. average is less than what the company
9. b. claimed.
10. type I
11. " 21. H! : . Ÿ 63.5
12. statistical hypothesis H" : .  63.5 (claim)
13. right t œ 0.47075
14. n  1 P-value > 0.25 (0.322)
15. H! : . œ 28.6 (claim) hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to
H" : . Á 28.6 support the claim that the average is greater
C. V. œ „ 1.96 than 63.5.
z œ 2.14
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough 22. H! : . œ 26 (claim)
evidence to reject the claim that the average H" : . Á 26
age is 28.6. C. V. œ „ 2.492
t œ  1.5
16. H! : . œ $6,500 (claim) Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
H" : . Á $6,500 not enough evidence to reject the claim that
C. V. œ „ 1.96 the average age is 26.
z œ 5.27
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough 23. H! : p œ 0.39 (claim)
evidence to reject the agent's claim. H" : p Á 0.39
C. V. œ „ 1.96
17. H! : . Ÿ 8 z œ  0.62
H" : .  8 (claim) Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
C. V. œ 1.65 not enough evidence to reject the claim that
z œ 6.00 39% took supplements. The study supports
Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough the results of the previous study.
average number of sticks is greater than 8. 24. H! : p 0.55 (claim)
H" : p  0.55
18. H! : . œ 500 (claim) C. V. œ  1.28
H" : . Á 500 z œ  0.899
C. V. œ „ 3.707 Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
t œ  0.571 not enough evidence to reject the dietitian's
Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is claim.
the average is 500. 25. H! : p œ 0.35 (claim)
H" : p Á 0.35
19. H! : . 67 C. V. œ „ 2.33
H" : .  67 (claim) z œ 0.666
t œ  3.1568 Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is
P-value < 0.005 (0.003) not enough evidence to reject the claim that
Since P-value < 0.05, reject the null the proportion is 35%.
support the claim that the average height is 26. H! : p œ 0.75 (claim)
less than 67 inches. H" : p Á 0.75
C. V. œ „ 2.58
20. H! : . 12.4 z œ 2.6833
147
26. continued
Reject the null hypothesis. there is enough
evidence to reject the claim.

0.4838.
P-value œ 2(0.5  0.4838) œ 0.0324

greater than 0.4999.
Thus, P-value Ÿ 2(0.5  0.4999) Ÿ 0.0002.
(Note: Calculators give 0.0001)
29. H! : 5 Ÿ 6
H" : 5  6 (claim)
C. V. œ 36.415
;# œ 54
standard deviation is more than 6 pages.
30. H! : 5 œ 8 (claim)
H" : 5 Á 8
C. V. œ 27.991, 79.490
;# œ 33.2
5 œ 8.
31. H! : 5 2.3
H" : 5  2.3 (claim)
C. V. œ 10.117
;# œ 13
that the standard deviation is less than 2.3.
32. H! : 5 œ 9 (claim)
H" : 5 Á 9
;# œ 13.4
P-value > 0.20 (0.290)
hypothesis. There is not enough evidence to
reject the claim that 5 œ 9.
33. 28.9  .  31.2; no
34. $6562.81  .  $6,637.19; no
148
Other documents randomly have
different content
during our stay amongst the ice. When I say “in a rush” it is only
relatively speaking. For a rush was impossible in our circumstances.
The pilot’s room offered good sleeping accommodation for two people
if they went to bed quietly and carefully. There were so many uprights,
struts, and pipes that our bedroom had the appearance of a birdcage.
The making of a miscalculated movement landed one against a pipe or
a strut, sometimes both. In addition to this one could not stand at full
height. To speak of a rush under such conditions is therefore stupid.
The sight which met us when we put our heads through the trap-door
was interesting, but not altogether inviting. It was interesting to note
how much four desperate men can straighten out. The pool we had
made was now covered with ice in the center of which N 25 was stuck.
The pressure was tremendous and a catastrophe seemed
unavoidable. Gathering all his strength, Riiser-Larsen sprang like a
tiger. He jumped high in the air in order to land anywhere on the ice
which jammed the seaplane. The result was always the same. The ice
broke under him without resistance. Omdal had got hold of a tool (I
don’t know which one) and helped his comrade splendidly with its aid.
Larsen pushed for all he was worth against the seaplane’s nose and
tried to free it from the ice pressure. By this united work they managed
to loosen the machine about 45° and thereby lighten the pressure
against the sides. In the meantime Ellsworth and I were occupied in
putting the provisions and equipment on the old ice. We were masters
of the situation at last, but it was a near thing that time.
To return to our old quarters was unthinkable, so we looked round
for a safe place somewhere else. We lay in a favorable position for
crossing to N 24 and decided it might be wise to pursue this course.
There was a possibility that we might reach it by way of the new ice,
but this seemed unlikely after our last experience. However we would
try our best to get over because it would be an advantage to be able to
use N 24’s petrol without transporting it. Moreover it appeared that
conditions across there were calmer and offered a safer resting place.
That this was not the case we shall see later.
Thus we began again to hack and to level and by breakfast time
the track was finished. Exactly as though we ourselves had dispersed
it the fog lifted, and we could soon start. This reminds me of an
amusing occurrence, amusing for others, but not exactly for me. On
account of the small accommodation in the machines it was necessary
for us always to move about in tabloid form, bent, drawn together and
compact. The result of this was cramp, sometimes in the legs, in the
thighs, in the stomach, in the back. These attacks came on at the most
inopportune moments and the martyr was a never-failing object of
general amusement. Everything was ready that morning for departure
and I suddenly remembered my glasses which I had forgotten in the
mess and which I now rushed to fetch. But it was a mistaken move on
my part. My first hasty jerk gave me cramp in both thighs with the
result that I could not move from the spot. I heard titters and giggles
and notwithstanding the infernal pain I could not do otherwise than join
in the general amusement.
The second start was not more fortunate than the first. The ice
broke all the way and N 25 became famous as an icebreaker. One
good result came from it, however, namely, that we got near to the
other machine. That presented a sad appearance as it lay there lonely
and forlorn with one wing high in the air, and the other down on the ice.
They had been lucky enough to get its nose up on to a grade of the old
ice floe, but the tail lay right out in the ice.
The conditions here seemed quite promising. We had an open
waterway about 400 meters long with fine new ice quite near. The third
attempt to start was undertaken the same afternoon but without result.
We decided to join up the waterway and the new ice. It was possible
that the great speed one could attain on the waterway would carry one
up onto the ice and if that happened there was a big chance of rising in
the air as the track would then have become about 700 meters long. At
2 a.m. on the 4th June we started the work, continuing all day. As by
eventide we had got the track finished, down came the fog and
prevented us from starting. A little later the ice got rather lively,
beginning to screw during the night. Fortunately it was only the new-
frozen ice, but even it was eight inches thick. There were pipings and
singings all round us as the ice jammed against the machine. The
methods and tools we now used were most original. Dietrichson armed
himself with a four-yard-long aluminium pole with which he did
wonderful work. Omdal used the film camera tripod, which was very
heavy, ending in three iron-bound points. Every blow therefore was
trebled and was most effective. Riiser-Larsen was the only one who
had brought rubber boots with him; these reached to his waist. As the
ice encroached it was met by ringing blows. The battle against it
continued the whole night and by morning we could once again look
back upon a conquest. Meantime the old ice had crept up nearer to us.
It now appeared as though the “Sphinx” was taking aim at us; this was
an ugly forbidding iceberg, formed in the shape of the Sphinx. The
movements of the ice had caused the sides of the waterway to set
together and our starting place was ruined again. The fog lay thick on
the 5th of June while fine rain was falling. The ice cracked and piped
as though it would draw our attention to the fact that it still existed.
Now what should one do?
With his usual energy Riiser-Larsen had gone for a walk that
afternoon amongst the icebergs accompanied by Omdal; they wished
to see if they could find another place which could be converted into a
starting place. They had already turned round to return home, as the
fog was preventing them from seeing anything, when suddenly it lifted
and there they stood in the center of the only plain which could be
used. This was 500 meters square and not too uneven to be made
level by a little work and patience. They came back happy and full of
hope and shouted to the “Sphinx”: “You may be amused and smile
even when others despair—even when the position is hopeless we still
sing with pleasure aha! aha! aha! Things are improving day by day.”
The “Sphinx” frowned! It did not like this!
COLLECTING SNOW BLOCKS FOR A RUN-WAY
The way to the plain which the two men had found was both long
and difficult, but we lived under conditions where difficulties frightened
us no more. First of all the machine must be driven there—about 300
meters through new ice to a high old plain. Here we would have to
hack out a slide to drive the machine up. From here the road crossed
over to the Thermopylæ Pass, which was formed by two moderately
sized icebergs, and ended in a three-yards-wide ditch over which the
machine must be negotiated on to the next plain. On the other side
one could see the last obstacle which must be overcome in the form of
an old crack about five yards wide with sides formed of high icebergs
and loose snow—rotten conditions to work in. Early on the morning of
the 6th the work was started. After breakfast we took all our tools and
attacked the old ice where the grade should be built. In order to get to
this spot we had to pass round a corner which took us out of sight of
N 25. Under general circumstances one would not have left the
machine unattended, but conditions were otherwise than general and
we had no man we could spare. Singing “In Swinemunde träumt man
im Sand,” the popular melody associated with our comfortable days in
Spitzbergen, we used our knives, axes, and ice-anchor to the best
advantage, and fragments of ice flew in all directions. It is with pride
and joy that I look back on these days, joy because I worked in
company with such men, proud because our task was accomplished.
Let me say quite frankly and honestly that I often regarded the
situation as hopeless and impossible. Ice-walls upon ice-walls raised
themselves up and had to be removed from our course; an
unfathomable gulf seemed to yawn before us threatening to stop our
progress. It had to be bridged by cheeky heroes who, never grumbling,
tackled the most hopeless tasks with laughter and with song.
TRYING OUT OUR BULB SEXTANTS

FAST IN THE ICE
At 1 p.m. we went on board for soup. The ice was then calm. The
“Sphinx” lay in the same position. Oh! how good the thick pemmican
soup tasted! Five hours’ hard work on a cup of chocolate and three
small oatcakes gives one a good appetite. At 4 p.m. Dietrichson went
on board to fetch something, and on his return remarked that it
seemed to him that the old ice was approaching the seaplane. Now,
he, during the last days, had suffered a little from snow blindness and
we thought accordingly he had made a mistake. It was indeed a
mistake. We should have gone at once and looked into the matter.
One must however remember that every second is precious and that
we grudged stopping work. At 7 p.m. we went on board to eat our three
biscuits. The sight which then met us would have filled the bravest
heart with despair. The great pack had approached the seaplane to
within some meters. The “Sphinx” seemed to bow and chuckle with
amusement. Now it would have us! But it had laughed too soon. The
six men that it now looked upon were not the same six who some days
ago had arrived through the air from a place full of life’s comforts; the
six now were hardened by obstacles, weariness and hunger, and they
feared nothing on earth, not even the “Sphinx.” “Hurrah! heroes.
Hurrah for home and all we hold dear. The devil take the ‘Sphinx.’” And
so the work began and in its performance we got more self-confident
than ever before, as we managed to turn the heavy machine round in
the course of a few minutes. What task each person specially
performed it is difficult to say, but it was a Herculean task. We lay
down, we pulled, we toiled, we scratched. “You shall go round!” Before
we realized it there it was, turned 180° and the course set for the new
slide. The “Sphinx” hung its head and looked sad; but the next day it
lay exactly on the spot where N 25 had lain. During this performance
N 24 was pushed on to the plain beside which it had lain. Still a little
more leveling and the slide was ready. To shouts of joy the machine, in
the evening at eleven o’clock, was driven over the track and stopped
exactly beside the Thermopylæ Pass. To-morrow there would not be
much to be done.
The 7th of June. Norway’s Day! At home they would be wearing
light summer clothes and enjoying life, while flags flew over the whole
land from the North Cape to Neset. But don’t think that we forgot this
day. No! From the N 25’s highest point our silk flag flew and our
thoughts—oh! don’t let us think at all of them!
The side of the pass was formed by two gigantic icebergs which
would have to be more than half cut down before the wings could pass
over and the great ditch had to be filled up with ton after ton of snow.
But the 7th of June is a good day to work for homesick folk. The knives
are driven with greater certainty, the axes swung with greater power,
and in a remarkably short time the ice giants dwindled to dwarfs. We
experienced a very exciting episode on this occasion. While Riiser-
Larsen drove the machine over the snow glacier Dietrichson went past
and did not get out of the way. At the last moment he threw himself
down flat on the ground and the tail-skid passed so near to him that I
could not see daylight between. It was in the words’ fullest meaning a
narrow escape. “I saw you all right,” remarked the pilot later. “But I
could not stop in the middle of the bridge.” That his words were true
was proved by looking back and noting that the bridge was no longer
there. It was a delightful feeling to sit on a “flynder” and rush across the
snow plains. It was not often we got the satisfaction, as we usually had
to stand by ready to push or haul the machine over the snow. But this
intermediate plain was hard and the pilot could manage to steer with
the wheel. And thus we stood before the last ditch which had to be
filled and leveled. It took us six hours before it was finished and the
machine landed in safety on the big plain. It had been thawing the
whole day and was uncomfortably warm for working, but one could
always throw some clothes off. We were not so particular about our
appearance.
The 8th of June brought us fog and half a degree of heat. It
drizzled the whole time and we were exceptionally uncomfortable. We
were now faced by another hard task, namely, turning the machine
round in the deep wet snow. We were unused to this work and
consequently were fairly clumsy. In addition to this we had to decrease
our daily rations from 300 to 250 grammes, insufficient to keep up our
strength. Our work in the deep wet snow of this plain was wearying.
More wearying than ever before. Do you remember, comrades, how
we made the turning platform? You will scarcely have forgotten that?
The machine had to be driven up to the starting place and then swung
round 180° to face the right direction. The snow as already said was
deep and wet, and any turning of the machine under these conditions
was hardly possible. What should we do now? There was only one
thing to be done, namely, to dig down to the ice and turn the machine
on that. The snow here was from two to three feet deep and every
spadeful was a heavy weight to lift, particularly as we used the big
shovels. We cleared a circular place with a diameter of fifteen meters.
That got the name “turning-table.” Had we solved our problem by this
you might have forgotten the turning-table by now, but when we tried to
turn the machine, we found that the skids caught in the ice and
stopped the whole progress. Again we were faced with the question
—“What shall we do?” And some one was struck by a bright idea—to
lay a snow-skate underneath. We all agreed the idea was good, but to
accomplish it was not easy. We must lift the machine and it weighed
four and one-half tons. But even that did not frighten us. It was not to a
great height that we had to lift it—just about two centimeters, but only
five men were available while the sixth must place the snow-skate
underneath. Never mind, come on, my heroes. Lay your shoulders to
the wheel and lift. And then five backs are bent in unison, and one!
two! three!—we had got it up on the snow-skate at last. We continued
working steadily, regardless of time’s flight, from 4 a.m. on the 8th of
June to 4 a.m. the next day. During that time starting place No. 5 was
worked on, tried, and approved. The fog lay thick and heavy while the
drizzle continued all day on the 9th, but Riiser-Larsen insisted that the
track should be completed. Think now what a problem we had before
us when we started to work that morning. A track—500 meters long—
twelve meters broad—should be made in wet snow three feet in depth.
The snow cleared away from the track must be thrown at least six
yards away from each side so that it should not get in the way of the
machine. We had lived on 250 grammes daily for several days so you
will not be astonished when I say that by evening we were absolutely
worn out. I watched, with wonder, the two giants who wielded the
shovels all day. We others did what we could, but our work was trifling
compared to theirs. On the 11th we set to again after breakfast, but we
could not keep up this strenuous work; an observer would have
noticed at once that he had a number of worn-out people before him.
The clang of the spades got slower, the rest-intervals longer and
longer till in the end we stood quite still and stared at each other. It
seemed an impossibility to get the snow shoveled aside in a
reasonable time. Whilst we stood discussing it, Omdal walked up and
down in the snow. It was only a chance that he did so, but a chance
which brought about important results. “See,” he shouted suddenly,
“this is what we can do instead of shoveling.” The place where he had
trekked was quite hard and with a little frost would give a splendid
surface. In the afternoon we started our great trek. Foot by foot of the
track of soft wet snow was trodden into a solid road. It was still
thawing, but we knew that if it turned frosty it would become a perfect
track—and it was only natural to expect that frost would come. To
make the surface even we had to remove long and high stretches of
ice-formation containing tons upon tons of ice. On the 14th of June as
we laid down our tools I don’t think I exaggerate when I say that all in
all we had removed 500 tons of ice and snow. That day we made two
starts, 6 and 7, but the foundation was still too soft as we had had no
constant frost. Certainly the temperature that day had been as low as
-12° c., but then it rose immediately after to 0° again. It was impossible
to get up sufficient speed to rise, the machine sank down into the
snow, and in a number of places dragged the whole of the underlying
snow with it. Now will it freeze or not?
The 15th of June was fixed as the latest day for our next attempt to
start. If that was not successful we must collaborate and decide what
could be done. There were not many courses to choose. Either we
must desert the machine and attempt to reach the nearest land, or we
must stay where we were and hope for an opportunity to rise in the air.
We had performed the miracle of leaving Spitzbergen with one month’s
provisions, and yet after four weeks had passed we found we had
provisions for six weeks. We could thus hold out until the 1st of
August. In my lifetime I have often been faced by situations where I
found it difficult to decide on the right course of action, but to choose in
this case with any degree of certainty was more difficult than the
making of any previous decision. The first alternative—to set off in
search of land—appeared to me to be the most sensible as, should our
provisions run out, it was possible further south that we might find
edible animal life. In addition this plan had the great advantage that it
would occupy our thoughts with the work we had ahead. Against this
plan the fact of our modest equipment and our probably weakened
condition must be weighed. When I privately considered these two
alternatives I always came to the conclusion that to look for land was
the most sensible, but as soon as I decided on this course a voice
whispered in my ear: “Are you mad, Boy? Will you leave a complete
and good machine, filled with petrol, and go down into the high broken
ice where you know you may perish miserably? A waterway may open
up before you to-morrow and then you will be home in eight hours’
time.” Will any one blame me for my indecision when I found it so
difficult to choose.
On the evening of the 14th we unloaded everything on the ice
except the most necessary, and that we placed in a canvas boat. We
kept sufficient petrol and oil for eight hours, one canvas boat, two
shotguns, six sleeping bags, one tent, cooking utensils and provisions
for a few weeks. Even our splendid ski-shoes had to be set aside as
they were too heavy. Of our clothes we only kept what we could not do
without. All told it amounted to about 300 kg.
On the 15th of June we had a temperature of -3° c. with a little
breeze from the southeast, just the very wind we required. The track
was frozen fine and hard during the night, but the sky was not too
promising—low-lying clouds—but what in all the world did we care
about the sky! The thickest fog would not have kept us back. In this
light the track was very difficult to see; small black objects were
therefore placed at each side so that the pilot would be certain to make
no mistake. A little too much to one side or the other could be fatal. At
9:30 p.m. everything was clear and ready for a start. The solar-
compasses and the engines started. They were three-quarters warmed
up. I cast a last glance over the track and walked along it to pass the
time. It ran from northeast towards southeast. A few yards in front of
the machine there was a small crack across the ice. It was only a few
inches wide, but there it was, and at any moment it might open and
separate the little corner we stood upon from all the rest. For the
distance of 100 meters the track rose quite gradually in order to
become level. Two hundred meters away, on the floe’s southeast end,
there also lay a crack right across, but this was of a much more
serious nature, and had caused us many uneasy moments. It was
about two feet wide and filled with water and mush. This seemed to
show that it was connected with the sea and could give us a few
unpleasant surprises sooner or later. Should this crack widen and tear
away 200 meters of our track, the latter would be entirely ruined. The
floe ended in a three-foot broad water-lane; on the other side of it,
direct in the line of the track, lay a flat forty-meter long plain, which one
will understand was far from ideal, but absolutely the best which the
place could offer us. At 10:30 everything was in order. In the pilot’s
seat sat Riiser-Larsen, behind him Dietrichson and I, in the petrol tank
Omdal and Feucht, and Ellsworth in the mess. Dietrichson was to
navigate us homewards and should really have taken his place in the
observer’s seat in front of the pilot. But as that was too exposed in
view of the nature of the task we were undertaking, his place was
allotted further back at the start. This was undeniably a most anxious
moment. As soon as the machine began to glide one could notice a
great difference from the day before. The hasty forward glide was not
to be mistaken. One hundred meters off, we started at top-speed,
2,000 revolutions a minute. It trembled and shook, shivered and piped.
It was as though N 25 understood the situation. It was as though the
whole of its energy had been gathered for one last and decisive spring
from the floe’s southern edge. Now—or never.
We rushed over the three-meter wide crack, dashed down from the
forty-meter broad floe and then? Was it possible? Yes, indeed! The
scraping noise stopped, only the humming of the motor could be
heard. At last we were in flight. A smile and a nod and Dietrichson
disappeared into the observation compartment.
And now started the flight which will take its place amongst the
most supreme in flying’s history. An 850-kilometer flight with death as
the nearest neighbor. One must remember that we had thrown
practically everything away from us. Even though we had managed by
a miracle to get away with our lives, after a forced landing, still our
days were numbered.
The sky was low and for two hours we were compelled to fly at a
height of fifty meters. It was interesting to observe the ice conditions,
so we eased down. We believed that in different places we observed
from the sky we could distinguish open water all around us. But it was
not the case. Not a drop was to be seen anywhere, nothing but ice in a
chaotic jumble all around. It was interesting also to see that the floe,
which from first to last had given us freedom, was the only floe within a
radius of many miles which could have been of any use to us. N 24 got
a farewell wave and was lost to sight for ever. Everything worked
excellently, the engines went like sewing machines and gave us
unqualified confidence. Both solar-compasses ticked and worked, and
we knew that if only the sun would appear, they would be of invaluable
assistance to us. The speedometers were placed. By the wheel sat the
pilot, cool and confident as always. In the navigating compartment was
a man I trusted absolutely, and by the engines two men who knew their
work perfectly. Ellsworth spent his time making geographical
observations and photographs. I myself managed to get what was
impossible on the journey north, a splendid opportunity to study the
whole flight. The course was set towards Spitzbergen’s north
coastland, around Nord Kap. In the two first hours we steered by the
magnetic compass. This had been considered an impossibility,
hitherto, so far north, but the result was excellent. When the sun broke
through after two hours and shone direct on the solar-compass, it
showed us how exactly we had steered. For three hours the
atmosphere had been clear, but now it turned to thick fog. We rose to a
height of 200 meters, flying over it in brilliant sunshine. Here we
derived much benefit from the solar-compasses and were able to
compare their readings with the magnetic-compass. We had fog for an
hour and then it cleared again. The condition of the ice was as on the
northern trip, small floes, with icebergs on all sides. There was
apparently no system in its formation; everything was a jumble. There
was more open water than on the northern tour, but no waterways,
only basins.
In 82° N. Lat. the fog descended again. The pilot tried for some
time to fly under it, and this was a flight which would have delighted
people who seek nerve-splitting thrills. The fog came lower and lower
till at last it stretched right over the icebergs. With a speed of about
120 miles at a low altitude one gets a new impression of flying. With a
rush we passed over the top of the icebergs one after the other. At a
great height one does not notice the terrific speed. One is, on the
contrary, astonished how slowly one appears to be traveling. Several
times icebergs peeped up directly under us, so close in fact that I
thought, “We shall never clear that one!” But the next moment we were
across it. There could not have been more than a hair’s breadth to
spare. At last the conditions became impossible; fog and ice blended
into one. We could see nothing. There was another matter as well
which was of special weight, namely, the nearness of Spitzbergen.
Should we fly into the high cliff walls with a speed of 120 kilometers
there would not be much left of us. There was only one thing to do—to
fly over the fog and that was exactly what the pilot decided to do.
Up 100 meters high—and we were above the fog in brilliant
sunshine. It was observable soon that the fog was thinning, it began to
lift more and more in big masses, and soon we could see territory
under it. It was not inviting; nothing but small ice with a little water.
When I speak of the impossible landing conditions it is only to show
that to land here would have meant certain death. Such a landing
would have crushed the machine and sent it to the bottom. The fog
lifted steadily and soon disappeared entirely. It was a fresh southerly
breeze which brought about this welcome change. The fog had lain
thickest in the south, but now that began to move away as well. Large
sections of it tore themselves away from the great mass and
disappeared in small driving clouds. Where was Spitzbergen? Had we
steered so mistakenly that we had flown to the side of it? It was quite
possible. One had no experience in the navigation of the air in these
regions. Over and over again the general opinion of the magnetic
compass’s uselessness in this district came back to my mind as I sat
there. The solar-compass had—as soon as we got the sun—shown a
reading in agreement with the magnetic compass, but it was set at
——? At what? If only I knew! There was probably no ground for
anxiety, yet I felt dubious. We ought to see land by now. We had not
enough petrol to last long—and still no land. Then suddenly a big
heavy fog-cloud tore itself away and rose slowly, disclosing a high
glittering hill-top. There was scarcely any doubt. It must be
Spitzbergen. To the north lay some islands. They coincided with
Syvöene and the land stretched out in a westerly direction. But even if
it were not Spitzbergen, it was still land—good, solid land. From the
islands there stretched a dark strip northwards. It was water—the great
open sea. Oh! what a delightful feeling—sea and land and no more
ice. Our course lay southwards, but to get more quickly away from the
ugly conditions beneath us, the course was set westwards and
downwards to the open sea. It was more than a clever move on the
part of the pilot—it was refreshing to see how instinct came to his aid—
because the controls were showing signs of wear. It is enough to say
before we had got right across the sea the controls jammed and an
immediate landing was necessary. The wind blew with a cold blast
from what we learned later was Hinlopen Strait and the sea was high
and rough. The forced landing was accomplished with all the
assurance and experience which always distinguished our pilot. We
left our places and all went aft in order to allow the nose to lift as high
as possible. The pilot was the only one left forward. He flew most
carefully, guiding the boat and maneuvering it against the highest
waves, which were of tremendous dimensions. We who were aft kept
warm and dry, but it was a different matter for the man at the wheel.
Time after time the waves lashed over him, wetting him to the skin in a
few minutes. It was not “spray” which we shipped when the waves
broke over us. Unused as I was to maneuvers of this kind I expected
every moment to see the bottom stove in. It was seven in the evening
when the forced landing was accomplished, and it was not until eight
that we reached land. It was a fairly shoal bay we entered and the
landing places it offered us were not of the best. We found a sloping
side of the coast ice where we could climb ashore. The wind now died
away and the sun shone on the heavy stones which lay on the beach.
Here and there a little fresh rill ran between them singing as it
descended from the hillsides. The sweet voices of birds fitted in with
our gentle mood of eventide and inspired in us a feeling of solemnity.
There was no need to look for a church wherein to praise God the
Almighty and offer up to Him our burning thanks. Here was a spot
amidst His own wonderful nature. The sea lay smooth and calm with
here and there tremendous pieces of ice protruding from the water.
The whole scene made an ineradicable impression on us which we
shall never forget. The plane was moored to a large piece of ice so
that it swung free, and all of us went ashore. There were two things
which it was necessary for us to do in our own interests. First to
discover our whereabouts and then to have a little food. The chocolate
and the three biscuits we had taken at 8 a.m. no longer satisfied us.
While Dietrichson “took the sun” the rest of us got the meal ready—a
repetition of breakfast. How good it tasted! How fine it was to jump
about among the big rocks! We became children again. All around lay
driftwood which we could use for firing if we remained here any time.
The ninety liters of petrol which we had must be used sparingly.
Omdal, who had been our cook during the whole trip, wished to set
the Primus going, as there was still a little drop of petrol left in it, and
he was busy with it when suddenly Riiser-Larsen shouted, “There is a
ship.” And truly there in the east round the nearest point came a little
cutter, gliding along. Had misfortune earlier been our lot luck seemed
now to overwhelm us. It was now 9 p.m. and Dietrichson had just
completed his observations. We found that we were exactly at Nord
Kap on Nordostland, the very spot we had steered for in the morning.
Thus the flight was a master-stroke on the part of the man who
directed the machine, while the navigator shares the distinction with
him. It was a splendid deed! But—the little cutter had changed her
course and apparently had not noticed us. She moved quickly and was
probably fitted with a motor engine. What should we do? What should
we do to communicate with it? “Nothing easier,” said the flying-men.
“Just sit tight and you shall see.” In a second everything was brought
on board the plane, the motor started and we rushed over the sea
stopping exactly beside the cutter. It was the cutter “Sjöliv” of Balsfjord
—Captain Nils Wollan. A jolly-boat was lowered and with two men
rowed across to us. They seemed in doubt as to who we could be,
dirty and bearded as we were. But when I turned slightly round I
exposed my profile—and they knew us at once. Would they tow us
down to King’s Bay as our petrol was almost done? They would be
delighted to do this, in fact Wollan would have certainly towed us to
China if we had asked him, so glad was he to see us, so beaming with
kindness and goodwill. We had a rope attached to N 25 and we all
went on board the “Sjöliv.” There for the first time we felt that the
expedition was finished. Quietly and calmly we shook hands with each
other—it was a handshake that said much. We were received by all
the crew with hearty welcome and shown down to the cabins. While
this part of the ship was not exactly a ballroom, the cabins on “Sjöliv”—
2 × 2 meters—compared with what we had had in the last four weeks,
were roomy and comfortable. These good people cleared out of them
absolutely and handed over the whole place to us. In the two broad
bunks four of us were able to sleep, while two found berths in the
men’s quarters. “Will you have coffee?” was the first question. Would
we! Yes, certainly, and as quickly as possible with a smoke thrown in.
We had been tobaccoless for the last days and now were longing for a
smoke. The first coffee was not an unqualified success; the coffee pot
was set on the fire to warm and, on a mighty roll the cutter gave, it flew
straight onto Riiser-Larsen’s back. He was thus the first to get coffee,
but if he appreciated the honor, his language expressed a totally
different opinion. They apologized to us for the egg pancake and the
seal-flesh which comprised the next course, but apologies were
unnecessary. All the food disappeared as though a whirlwind had
passed over the table—and this, despite the fact that we had decided
to eat sparingly after our long restriction.
The towing of N 25 proceeded satisfactorily in the beginning, but
during the night a southerly breeze came up blowing directly down
from the hills. The waves increased steadily and as we steered
westwards towards Hinlopen Strait we decided that we must turn
landwards and anchor. We only got to bed at 5:30 a.m., after traversing
an endless number of roods.
At eleven o’clock the next morning we were up again. It was
blowing a gale and we lay badly. We decided therefore that we should
go into the nearest bay to find a calm and safe harborage for N 25, let
it remain there while we went on to King’s Bay for assistance, return
for the seaplane and fly it down. The nearest harbor was Brandy Bay.
We looked at each other as much as to say, “Can we really permit
ourselves to enter a place with such a name?” The ice here lay at the
bottom of the Bay and we towed the machine safely through it. At 8
p.m. we steered for King’s Bay. It was a windy passage through
Hinlopen Strait. The sea was high and rough and the “Sjöliv” enjoyed
herself royally. If our feelings agreed with hers, I should not like to say.
On the 17th we sailed along Spitzbergen’s north coast in summer
sunshine and warmth. We passed a few vessels and asked if they had
seen “Hobby”—but “No, they had not.”
As we passed Virgo-havn we hoisted all our flags and the little
“Sjöliv” was in gala attire. We wanted to honor the memory of the man
who, for the first time, sought to reach the Pole through the air—
Salomon August Andrëe. Was there any one in the world who had
more right to honor the memory of this man than we six who stood
here looking over the place from which he set out on his sad
expedition. I scarcely think so. We lowered our flag and continued.
At 11 p.m. we rounded Cape Mitra and there lay King’s Bay before
us. It was a wonderful sensation to sail back through the Bay and see
all the old well-known places again. The ice had vanished, melted by
the sunshine as loon and auk gamboled in its rays. Anxiety was rife
among us as we sailed in as to whether “Hobby” was here or not? The
skipper looked out, came back and announced that “Hobby” was not
here; only a coal-boat lay by the quay. As we approached one or other
of us went continually to look out; suddenly some one cried, “Yes,
there is ‘Hobby.’ And another boat lies there also, but I can’t distinguish
which it is.” Our relief was great. There lay “Hobby” and many of our
dear friends were near. “Hullo,” some one cried from above, “the other
boat is the Heimdal.’” “No, you must be mad. What would the ‘Heimdal’
be doing here?” answered another. We had not the slightest idea what
awaited us. Nearer and nearer we approached. “Shall we raise the
flag?” said the skipper. “No,” I answered, “there is no reason to do so.”
But a little later some one said, “Surely we must greet the naval flag.”
“Yes, naturally. I have forgotten my good manners on the trip,” I had to
admit. So up went the flag and the “Sjöliv” approached the quay. We
continually had our glasses directed on the ships ahead; suddenly
some one exclaimed, “Good gracious, two flying machines are lying
there.” And, true enough, there lay two Hansa-Brandenburgers ready
for flight. Surely they were destined for a North Coast charting survey,
as that had been discussed last year. Yes, that seemed quite possible!
That we were the reason for all this excitement never entered our
minds. We came on nearer and nearer. We could now see that they
were beginning to direct glasses on us from the Coast, showing
interest in the little cutter. As we sailed in one of our people who saw a
comrade on board the “Hobby” shouted, “Hullo, Finn, how is everything
at home?” That was the signal for great excitement. We saw them run
round each other in jubilation, shouting and gesticulating. What in the
world was the reason for all this? Soon we were to know. The motor
stopped and the “Sjöliv” sailed up alongside “Hobby.”
MEMBERS OF THE EXPEDITION ARRIVING AT KING’S BAY

The reception we received will never be forgotten, not even when
other things fill our thoughts. Our friends wept, they took hold of us,
they looked at us with unbelieving glance—“But, Great God, is it you?”
They simply did not realize that we had returned. But they explained
how they had waited and waited, insisting that they had never given us
up, while in their hearts they knew they had. And suddenly there we
stood among them—the dead returned to life. No wonder that the
reaction was great. Not one sensible word was said during the first half
hour. There stood all our dear old friends: Captain Hagerup, Lieutenant
Horgen, Zapffe, Ramm, Berge, etc. They looked so happy. And there
were the dear fellows who had been sent to our relief: Captain Blom of
the “Heimdal” and First Lieutenant F. Lutzow-Holm with the air fleet.
ROALD AMUNDSEN AND LINCOLN ELLSWORTH AT THE

RECEPTION BY THE KING OF NORWAY
The last to come down, not because he wished to be late, but
because it took him a long time to traverse the road from the Director’s
house, was our dear host, Stakkars Knutsen. He had run so fast that
he had to stand for a time to regain his breath. It was a warm reunion.
Among all who had missed us in that time there was scarcely anybody
whom our absence had made more uneasy. Late and early, we were
told, he had scanned the horizon looking for us. Never had we been
out of his thoughts. Big, strong man as he was, he had the warmest
and softest of hearts. No wonder then that the meeting with Knutsen
was regarded as an outstandingly important incident.
We had to be photographed from all sides, although a record
would appear on the plate of a month’s whiskers and dirt. In an hour
both would have vanished. And so we set off to our old King’s Bay
quarters where we had passed unforgettable days before our
departure. It was like a delightful dream to see it again. Every day as
we had sat in our little mess on N 25 taking our humble meal, it was
remarked on every side, “Oh! if only we were back at Knutsen’s.” And
now we were there. We felt we wanted to pinch ourselves and ask, “Is
this really possible? Can you really eat as many biscuits as you wish?”
There was no time to shave and wash first. No! Berta had now taken
command, and we should first and foremost have food. As we stepped
into the room, cheering broke out. The Station welcomed us back, and
never has our National Anthem sounded finer than it did as we stood in
the little square room listening to the tones of what is our dearest
hymn. I believe there was not one dry eye in the company. “Gud sygne
dig landet vaart. Vi gir dig med glede alt.”
On the next day about three or four o’clock the steam bath was
ready and a change was effected; hair and whiskers disappeared. We
were all very thin, but we noticed it now more distinctly. It looked as
though Riiser-Larsen could have put his collar twice round his neck—
the same size collar which had even been tight for him when he set out
for the north.
What time we went to bed that night I really cannot say, but I do
know that when I came out next morning and looked around, one of
the finest sights met me, making an ineradicable impression. On the
flagstaff, right before the house, waved our big, beautiful National flag
in a light summer breeze. The sun was blazing down and the glaciers
around shone like silver in its rays. All seemed to be in festal dress.
The hills blushed with the finest little flowers, and the birds twittered
and sang. In the harbor lay the boats fully be-flagged. Yes! it was

13549

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

13549

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13549

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download solution manual or testbank at testbankdeal.

Elementary Statistics 6th Edition Allan Bluman

Download more solution manual or test bank from https://testbankdeal.com

Elementary Statistics A Brief 6th Edition Bluman Solutions

Elementary Statistics A Brief 6th Edition Bluman Test Bank

Elementary Statistics A Step Step Approach 10th Edition

Finite Mathematics 6th Edition Waner Test Bank

Introduction to Mechanical Engineering SI Edition 4th

Managerial Accounting Tools for Business Decision Making

New Perspectives on Computer Concepts 2018 Introductory

Transportation A Supply Chain Perspective 7th Edition

Note: Graphs are not to scale and are 7.

EXERCISE SET 8-2 8.

12. continued 12. continued

0  2.58  2.58 0  2.58

EXERCISE SET 8-3 3. continued

Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is C. V. œ 1.65

Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

average debt is less than $3262.

C. V. œ  1.65 X œ $31.5 s œ $28.7

Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

C. V. œ „ 1.96 X œ 29.45 s œ 2.61

Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

10. continued 13. continued

The area corresponding to z œ 8.69 is

18. 21. continued

enough evidence to support the claim that

The area corresponding to z œ  2.4 is 23.

the number of calories burned is less than

21. X œ 59.93 s œ 13.42

25. EXERCISE SET 8-4

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is

Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is

Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

10. continued 13.

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is

Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

C. V. œ „ 1.703 d. f. œ 27 Reject the null hypothesis. There is enough

16. 19. continued

Since P-value < 0.05, reject the null  2.201 Å 0 2.201

Since P-value < 0.01, reject the null tœ X.

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is

10. continued 13.

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is 15.

H" : p Á 0.14 Area œ 0.2257

16. continued 18. continued

that the percentage is less than 83%.

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is

21. continued 1. continued

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is

C. V. œ 8.672, 27.587 ! œ 0.10

Since P-value < 0.01, reject the null

Do not reject the null hypothesis. There is

12. 14. continued