the conclusion?

Same doubt, upvoted :)

I thought about it, so you know how we are 95% sure that the actual difference between apples in NY and LA is between two positive intervals? ie (0.47 , 0.92) ?
This means that the Difference between $NY-$LA is positive, which means $NY > $LA
Hence the conclusion that NY apples are more $$$ expensive

Hi Sati, Hi Abdelrahman,

I had the same doubt... how do you define 'much more' to draw the conclusion.

I agree $NY > $LA.

For me, to answer the question, it is a matter of interpretation and so I attempted to work back through the logic.

My interpretation is that this could be understood such that .47 to .92 are proportionate to the original dollar value.

If you use the Sample Mean for both, 3.94(NY) & 3.25(LA), I would argue that multiplying the interval limits with the Mean for NY & LA, gives you some perspective. I interpret this in the following scenario: Given the only option to buy 100 apples. If the store sold you the NY apples for $363 and then showed you the LA-Apple at $299, the difference would likely motivate you to return the NY-Apples and buy the LA-Apple, saving you $64 for the 100 apples.

I added a table but I am not sure if it shows so I'll describing it: I created the table with the confidence levels as rows & the NY & LA mean as columns and then multiplied them. 

I wish there was more of a clarification from the instructor but this is how I rationalized the question.

Please let me know if this helped or if you disagree and can argue against my interpretation.

Whatever all of you are saying is correct.

If the mean price derived is not the same then there lies a difference.

And if difference is there then we can conclude our observation and subsequently close the problem.

forget the phrasing of much more and just use the expression. A 95% CI shows that apples (on average) are more expensive than in NY than LA. And the value of this mean difference is somewhere within the CI