My textbook is unclear about how to do this with exponential distributions (it spends the whole time talking about normal ones), so I'm asking this here to see if I got it right.
The question mentions a statistical test such that:
$H_{0} : \lambda = 2$
$H_{1} : \lambda > 2$
$H_{0}$ is rejected if $X > 3$
(There's only one data point).
a) Calculate the significance level.
Assuming $H_{o}$ is true, we have that $\frac{1}{\lambda} = 2$ and $\lambda = \frac{1}{2}$.
$$P(X > 3\mid H_0) = 1 \ - P(X \leq 3)$$
$$1 - e^{-\lambda (3)} = 1 - e^{-1.5} = 0.77686983985$$
b) Calculate the power level when $\lambda = 2.5$
\begin{align} & P(X > 0.7769\mid\lambda = 2.5) \\[10pt] = {} & 1 - e^{-\lambda(0.7769)} = 1 - e^{-2.5(0.7769)} = 0.8566 \end{align}
c) If the actual value of $\lambda$ is $2.5$, is this procedure going to make a good decision?
Yes, because the power is high?
Why I think I'm missing something: I haven't used the info $H_1 : \lambda > 2$ given in the question
EDIT: I don't know why I said $\frac{1}{\lambda} = 2$. I was thinking about something else. Here's the alternative answer:
Significance level
\begin{align} & P(X > 3\mid H_0) = 1 - P(X \leq 3) \\[10pt] = {} & 1 - e^{-3(2)} = 0.9975 \end{align}
Power
$$P(X > 0.9975\mid\lambda = 2.5)$$
$$1 - e^{-2.5(0.9975)} = 0.9174$$
As stated the problem makes no sense, and not surprisingly, you have made some mistakes in dealing with exponential probabilities. I will do my best to write something helpful.
Suppose $H_0: \mu = 2$ and $H_a: \mu > 2.$ Then it makes sense to reject if $X > 3.$
Then the significance level is $$P(\text{Rej}\,|\,\mu = 2) = P(X > 3\,|\,\mu = 2) = e^{-\lambda(3)} = e^{-1.5} = 0.2231.$$
In R statistical software, the exponential functions use the rate $\lambda = 1/\mu$ as parameter and
pexpis an exponential CDF. So the computation in R is:The power against the alternative that $\mu = 2.5$ is $$P(\text{Rej}\,|\,\mu = 2.5) = P(X > 3\,|\, \mu= 2.5) = e^{-\lambda(3)} = e^{-(1/2.5)(3)} = e^{-1.2} = 0.3012.$$
The figure below shows the null distribution with $\mu = 2,\,$ $(\lambda = 0.5)$ (in blue) and the particular alternative distribution with $\mu = 2.5,\,$ $(\lambda = 0.4)$ (in red). The rejection region is the interval $(3, \infty).$ Rejection probabilities are areas under the curves to the right of the vertical dotted line. The probability of rejection is a little higher under the alternative. This is a difficult testing situation because there is so little difference between the null and alternative distributions.
Note: Tests based on only one observation are seldom of practical use. Instead, suppose $n = 100,\,$ $H_0: \mu = 2,\,$ $H_a: \mu > 2.$ Then it makes sense to reject $H_0$ when $\bar X > 2.34,$ which gives significance level about $\alpha = 0.05.$
Using moment generating functions, one can show that $\bar X \sim \mathsf{Gamma}(shape = 100, scale = n\lambda),$ where $\lambda = 1/\mu.$ Then $E(\bar X) = \mu$ and $SD(\bar X) = \mu/\sqrt{n} = \mu/10.$
The significance level is 5% and the power against the alternative $\mu = 2.5,\, \lambda = 0.4$ is about 73%.
A plot of density curves of the distribution of $\bar X$ for $\mu = .5$ (null hypothesis) and $\mu = .4$ (specific alternative) are much different, so that a practical test is possible.