Statistical Analysis and Design

Statistical Analysis and Design

Activity 2.0
Submitted by:
Jericka Christine Alson, CIE
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Activity for One Sample Test

• Instructions
• For each problem perform the analysis using Minitab
• Present/ Screen shots your results same as the presentation of the example
• Interpret the result of the data
• Present your results in a power point
• Copy the problem then followed by results
• Submit your output in powerpoint pdf format.
• Note: if there is no given level of significance used 0.05
• Due on Sunday (May 10, 2020) until 12 midnight
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 1
A study was conducted by the Department of Zoology at Virginia
Tech to determine if there is a significant difference in the density
of organisms at two different stations located on Cedar Run, a
secondary stream in the Roanoke River drainage basin. Sewage
from a sewage treatment plant and overflow from the Federal
Mogul Corporation settling pond enter the stream near its
headwaters.

The following data give the density measurements, in number of

organisms per square meter, at the two collecting stations: Can
we conclude, at the 0.05 level of significance, that the average
densities at the two stations are equal? Assume that the
observations come from normal populations with different
variances.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 1 Results
P value Interpretation
The null hypothesis states that the difference in the
density of organisms between two different stations
is 0. Because the p-value is 0.022, which is less than
the significance level of 0.05, the study rejects the
null hypothesis and concludes that the density of
organisms differ.

Confidence Interval Interpretation

In these results, the estimate of the population
difference in means in the density is 5,777. You can
be 95% confident that the population mean for the
difference is between 914 and 10,639.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 2
The following data represent the running times
of films produced by two motion-picture
companies: Test the hypothesis that the
average running time of films produced by
company 2 exceeds the average running time
of films produced by company 1 by 10 minutes
against the one-sided alternative that the
difference is less than 10 minutes. Use a 0.1
level of significance and assume the
distributions of times to be approximately
normal with unequal variances.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 2 Results
P value Interpretation
The null hypothesis states that the difference in the
running times of films produced by two motion-
picture companies is 10. Because the p-value is
0.104, which is greater than the significance level of
0.100, the we accept the null hypothesis and
conclude that the running times is same.

Confidence Interval Interpretation

In these results, the estimate of the population
difference in the running times is -12.6. You can be
90% confident that the population mean for the
difference is between -35.5 and 10.3.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 3
According to published reports, practice under fatigued conditions distorts
mechanisms that govern performance. An experiment was conducted
using 15 college males, who were trained to make a continuous horizontal
right -to -left arm movement from a microswitch to a barrier, knocking over
the barrier coincident with the arrival of a clock sweep hand to the 6
o’clock position. The absolute value of the difference between the time, in
milliseconds, that it took to knock over the barrier and the time for the
sweep hand to reach the 6 o’clock position (500 msec) was recorded.
Each participant performed the task five times under pre fatigue and post
fatigue conditions, and the sums of the absolute differences for the five
performances were recorded. An increase in the mean absolute time
difference when the task is performed under post fatigue conditions would
support the claim that practice under fatigued conditions distorts
mechanisms that govern performance. Assuming the populations to be
normally distributed, test this claim.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 3 Results
P value Interpretation
The null hypothesis states that the difference in the
practice under fatigued conditions 0. Because the p-
value is 0.012, which is less than the significance
level of 0.05, the study rejects the null hypothesis
and supports the claim that practice under fatigued
conditions distorts mechanisms that govern
performance

Confidence Interval Interpretation

In these results, the estimate of the population
difference in the practice under fatigued conditions is
-54.1. You can be 95% confident that the population
mean for the difference is greater than -16.4.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 4
Nine subjects were used in an experiment to determine if
exposure to carbon monoxide has an impact on breathing
capability. The data were collected by personnel in the
Health and Physical Education Department at Virginia Tech
and were analyzed in the Statistics Consulting Center at
Hokie Land. The subjects were exposed to breathing
chambers, one of which contained a high concentration of
CO. Breathing frequency measures were made for each
subject for each chamber. The subjects were exposed to the
breathing chambers in random sequence. The data give the
breathing frequency, in number of breaths taken per minute.
Make a one -sided test of the hypothesis that mean
breathing frequency is the same for the two environments.
Use α = 0.05. Assume that breathing frequency is
approximately normal.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 4 Results
P value Interpretation
The null hypothesis states that the difference in the
impact of exposure to carbon monoxide on breathing
capability is 0. Because the p-value is 0.023, which
is less than the significance level of 0.05, the study
rejects the null hypothesis and concludes that there
is a difference between the two environments.

Confidence Interval Interpretation

In these results, the estimate of the population
difference in means in the impact of exposure to
carbon monoxide on breathing capability is 2. You
can be 95% confident that the population mean for
the difference is lower than 0.420.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 5
In a study to estimate the proportion of residents in a certain city and its suburbs who favor the construction of a
nuclear power plant, it is found that 63 of 100 urban residents favor the construction while only 59 of 125
suburban residents are in favor. Is there a significant difference between the proportions of urban and suburban
residents who favor construction of the nuclear plant?
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 5 Results
P value Interpretation
The null hypothesis states that the difference in the
proportion of residents and its suburbs who favor the
construction of a nuclear power plant is 0. Because the p-
values 0.016 and 0.022, which is both less than the
significance level of 0.05, the study rejects the null
hypothesis. The results indicate that there is a difference
between the proportion of residents and its suburbs.

Confidence Interval Interpretation

In these results, the estimate of the population difference in
proportions who favor the construction of the nuclear plant
is 0.158. You can be 95% confident that the ratio of
population standard deviations is between approximately
0.029108 and 0.286892.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 6
In a study on the fertility of married women conducted by Martin O’Connell and Carolyn C. Rogers for the Census
Bureau in 1979, two groups of childless wives aged 25 to 29 were selected at random, and each was asked if she
eventually planned to have a child. One group was selected from among wives married less than two years and
the other from among wives married five years. Suppose that 240 of the 300 wives married less than two years
planned to have children some day compared to 288 of the 400 wives married five years. Can we conclude that
the proportion of wives married less than two years who planned to have children is significantly higher than the
proportion of wives married five years?
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 6 Results
P value Interpretation
The null hypothesis states that the difference in the fertility
of married women is 0. Because the p-value is 0.006 and
0.009, which is both less than the significance level of 0.05,
the study rejects the null hypothesis and conclude that the
proportion of wives married less than two years who
planned to have children is significantly higher than the
proportion of wives married five years.

Confidence Interval Interpretation

In these results, the estimate of the population difference in
the fertility of married women is approximately 0.08 You can
be 95% confident that the population mean for the
difference is lower than 0.027023.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 7
Past data indicate that the amount of money contributed by the working residents of a large city to a volunteer
rescue squad is a normal random variable with a standard deviation of $1.40. It has been suggested that the
contributions to the rescue squad from just the employees of the sanitation department are much more variable. If
the contributions of a random sample of 12 employees from the sanitation department have a standard deviation of
$1.75, can we conclude at the 0.01 level of significance that the standard deviation of the contributions of all
sanitation workers is greater than that of all workers living in the city?
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 7 Results

P value Interpretation
The null hypothesis states that the that the probability of
the time required for high school seniors to complete a
standardized test is a normal random variable with a
standard deviation of 6 minutes. Because the p-value is
0.135, which is greater than the significance level of 0.05,
we accept the null hypothesis. The results indicate that
the time required for high school seniors to complete the
test is 6 minutes.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 8
Hydrocarbon emissions from cars are known to have
decreased dramatically during the 1980s. A study was
conducted to compare the hydrocarbon emissions at
idling speed, in parts per million (ppm), for automobiles
from 1980 and 1990. Twenty cars of each model year
were randomly selected, and their hydrocarbon emission
levels were recorded.

The data are as follows:

Test the hypothesis that σ1 = σ2 against the alternative
that σ1 ≠ σ2. Assume both populations are normal.
 Statistical Analysis and Design

Problem 8 Results
Confidence Interval Interpretation
In these results, the estimate for
the population ratio of standard
deviations for hydrocarbon
emissions at idling speed between
each year is 2.35410. You can be
95% confident that the population
ratio of the standard deviations is
between 1.481 and 3.742.

P value Interpretation
The null hypothesis states that the ratio between the standard deviations is 1.
Because the p-value is less than the significance level 0.05, we reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that the variances are different.