Technical High College Entrance 579

1. Mean = = 24.125
School Group 24
25 21 (Technical High School)
27 29
20 16 547
Mean = = 22.792
17 7 24
17 26 (College Entrance Group)
33 23
27 21
23 18
The technical high school group
29 28 has a slightly higher mean
23 18 (24.125) compared to the college
26 17 entrance group (22.792). With a
20 29 difference of 1.333 between the
30 31 two groups, the null hypothesis is
32 25 rejected, suggesting that there is a
14 20 significant difference in means.
29 32
26 14 This could imply that the technical
21 32 high school group, on average,
20 26 performed better than the college
26 24 entrance group.
24 27
26 23
32 23
12 17
579 547
2.
Per Capita Income Tax
(X) Weekly Sales Stelsol Shoes Stores (Y) XY X2 Y2
2000 30000 60000000 4000000 900000000
2000 30000 60000000 4000000 900000000
3000 50000 150000000 9000000 2500000000
3000 50000 150000000 9000000 2500000000
2000 50000 100000000 4000000 2500000000
4000 60000 240000000 16000000 3600000000
4000 50000 200000000 16000000 2500000000
5000 60000 300000000 25000000 3600000000
2000 40000 80000000 4000000 1600000000
4000 50000 200000000 16000000 2500000000
31000 470000 1540000000 107000000 23100000000

Correlation
nΣxy−ΣxΣy
r= ¿
√[ nΣx 2−( Σx ) 2 ] [ nΣy 2 ]− ( Σy ) 2¿
1540000000−(31000)(470000)
r=
√[20 (107000000 ) ¿−( 31000 ) 2]¿¿ ¿
r = 0.791

The correlation coefficient (r) of 0.791 indicates a strong positive relationship

between per capita income tax and weekly sales at Stelsol shoe stores. This
means that as per capita income tax increases, there is a tendency for weekly
sales to also increase, and vice versa.

The high correlation value of 0.791 suggests that the relationship is not just
random chance but has a substantial and statistically significant pattern. In
practical terms, this could imply that economic factors, like changes in per
capita income tax, have a considerable impact on the sales performance of
Stelsol shoe stores.
 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

1.

ANOVA

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

A Between Groups 3486.417 8 435.802 4.409 .125

Within Groups 296.500 3 98.833

Total 3782.917 11
B Between Groups 3646.923 9 405.214 1.930 .320

Within Groups 630.000 3 210.000

Total 4276.923 12

The value of F is 4.409, which reaches significance with a p-value of .125

which is greater than .05 alpha level. This implies that there is no significant
difference between the means of the different sections in elementary
Mathematics course.
The value of F is 1.1930, which reaches significance with a p-value
of .320 which is greater than .05 alpha level. This implies that there is no
significant difference between the means of the different sections in elementary
Mathematics course.

2. Post hoc tests are not performed for A, B C, and D because at least one
group has fewer than two cases.

This means that the laboratory variances are not significant using the
analysis of variance test.
 PROBLEMS ON PROBABILITY
1. Drawing an ace of spades from a pack of cards

1
P(Ace of Spades) =
54

3 1
2. P(Even Number) = =
6 2

7
3. A. P(Not Red) =
12

9 3
B. P(Not White) = =
12 4
4.

0.22 0.40
0.40 0.10

0.28
History Sociology

The probability that he will pass at least one of these two subjects is as follows:

P (H U S) = 0.22 + 0.40 + 0.10 = 0.72

5.

2
−x x0.10 4
3 −x
9
 2 4 4
−x + x + −x =
3 9 5
10 4
−x =
9 5
10 4
x=¿ -
9 5
50−36
x=¿
45

14
x=
45

14
Therefore, the probability the he will pass on both courses is .
45
PROBLEMS ON t – TEST
1.

BOYS GIRLS BOYS

63 61 Variance = Σ(xi – σ)2
59 52 N
58 58 Variance = (63 – 62.1)2+…+(60 – 62.1)2
68 56 10
140.9
65 59 Variance =
10
64 61
Variance = 14.09
56 65
67 67
Standard deviation = √ 14.09
61 60 = 3.753665
60 54
Mean 62.1 59.3 GIRLS
Standard Variance = Σ(xi – σ)2
deviation 3.753665 4.382921 N
2 2
Variance = (61 – 59.3) +…+(54 – 59.3)
10
192.1
=
10
Variance = 19.21

Standard deviation = √ 19.21

 = 4.382921

( 62.1−59.3 )−0
t = √ ( 3.753665 ) 2 (4.382921)2
+
10 10
2.8

√
t = 1.409 1.921
10
2.8
+
10
t=
√ 0.333
t = 2.8 / 0.577062
t = 4.852165

2.

Test I Test II Test I

18 16 Variance = Σ(xi – σ)2
12 14 N
8 8 Variance = (18-9.6875)2+…+(11-9.6875)2
6 8 16
305.4375
3 8 Variance =
16
12 10
Variance = 19.08984375
16 8
7 14
Standard deviation = √19.08984375
8 2 = 4.3691926
12 8
15 14 Test II
7 4 Variance = Σ(xi – σ)2
5 6 N
12 6 Variance = (16-8.3125)2+…+(7-8.3125)2
3 0 16
11 7 =
Mean 9.6875 8.3125 299.4375
Standard 4.36919 4.326065 16
Deviation 26 62 Variance = 18.71484375
Standard deviation = √18.71484375
 = 4.32606562

( Mean 1−Mean 2 ) −(μ 1−μ 2)

t= √ ( s 1 ) 2 + √ ( s 2) 2
n n

( 9.6875−8.3125 ) −0
t = √ ( 4.3691926 ) 2 (4.32606562)2
+
16 16
1.375
t = √ 19.08 18.71
+
16 16
1.375
t=
√ 2.36
t = 1.375 / 1.536229
t = 0.89504885
The obtained t-test value of 0.89504885 is compared to the critical value at a
chosen alpha level (e.g., 0.05). If the obtained t-value is greater than the critical
value, it suggests that there is no significant difference between the means of
the two distributions, and the null hypothesis is not rejected. However, if the
obtained t-value is less than the critical value, then the null hypothesis is
rejected, indicating a significant difference between the means.

PROBLEMS ON CHI – SQUARE (X2)

1.
Talaver Sta.
a Rosa
High 30 15
Moderate 25 20
Low 25 65

df = n – 1
=3–1
=2

Critical Value = 5.991

X2c = Σ (O – E)2
E
X2c = (-15)2 + (-5)2 + (40)2
 15 20 65
2
X = 15 + 1.25 + 24.6154
c
2
X = 40.8654
c

Therefore, there is no significant difference of their performance.

2.
Uppe Upper Lower Lowe
Speech Defect r Middle Middle r Total
Present 8 24 32 27 91
Absent 42 121 138 108 500

df = n – 1
=4–1
=3
Critical Value = 11.34

X2c = Σ (O – E)2
E

X2c = (-34)2 + (-97)2 + (-106)2 + (-81)2

42 121 138 108
X2c = 27.5238 + 77.7603 + 81.4203 + 60.75
X2c = 247.4544

The computed chi-square value of 247.4544 exceeds the critical value of 11.34.
This leads us to reject the null hypothesis, indicating that the data are not
compatible with the idea that speech defect is unrelated to socio-economic
status. The significant chi-square result suggests that there is likely an
association or relationship between speech defect and socio-economic status
within the observed data.

PROBLEMS ON PEARSON r (COEFFICIENT OF CORRELATION)

1.

English x- y- [x - [y -
(X) Math (Y) x(mean) y(mean) x(mean)]2 y(mean)]2
29 23 1.933 -1.867 3.736489 3.485689
30 20 2.933 -4.867 8.602489 23.687689
25 24 -2.067 -0.867 4.272489 0.751689
34 22 6.933 -2.867 48.066489 8.219689
23 21 -4.067 -3.867 16.540489 14.953689
26 25 -1.067 0.133 1.138489 0.017689
 24 26 -3.067 1.133 9.406489 1.283689
30 30 2.933 5.133 8.602489 26.347689
25 22 -2.067 -2.867 4.272489 8.219689
32 28 4.933 3.133 24.334489 9.815689
20 20 -7.067 -4.867 49.942489 23.687689
21 22 -6.067 -2.867 36.808489 8.219689
27 29 -0.067 4.133 0.004489 17.081689
25 29 -2.067 4.133 4.272489 17.081689
35 32 7.933 7.133 62.932489 50.879689
MEAN SUM/TOTAL
27.067 24.867 -0.005 -0.005 282.933335 213.733335

r= Σ (x - x(mean))( y - y(mean))__
√Σ[x - x(mean)]2 • Σ[y - y(mean)]2

(−0.005)(−0.005) 0.000025 0.000025

r= = =
√ (282.933335)(213.733335) √ 60472.285272222 77.764293

= 0.000000321484 or 3.21484E-07

The positive value of the correlation coefficient (r) between English and Math
test scores, where 0 < r < 1, indicates a significant positive linear relationship
between the two variables. In simpler terms, as the English test scores
increase, there is a corresponding increase in Math test scores. This positive
correlation suggests a tendency for the two variables to move together in a
systematic way, reinforcing the idea that performance in English is associated
with higher performance in Math within the given dataset.

2.

GPA (X) Number of Offers (Y) x - x(mean) y - y(mean) [x - x(mean)]2 [y - y(mean)]2

3.90 7 0.70 2.5 0.49 6.25
2.50 2 -0.70 -2.5 0.49 6.25
3.00 4 -0.20 -0.5 0.04 0.25
4.00 8 0.80 3.5 0.64 12.25
2.00 0 -1.20 -4.5 1.44 20.25
3.80 6 0.60 1.5 0.36 2.25
MEAN SUM/TOTAL
3.2 4.5 0.00 0.00 3.46 47.5

r= Σ (x - x(mean))( y - y(mean))__
 √Σ[x - x(mean)]2 • Σ[y - y(mean)]2

0 (0) 0 0
r= = = =0
√ (3.46)(47.5) √ 164.35 12.82

The computed correlation of 0 indicates no significant linear relationship

between GPA and the number of job offers. The critical value (rtab) of 0.8745
suggests that for the given sample size and significance level, a correlation
value would need to be at least 0.8745 to be considered statistically significant.

Since the computed correlation is 0 and falls below this critical value, we
conclude that there is no consistent linear component to the relationship
between GPA and the number of job offers in this dataset. However, it's
essential to note that this conclusion is specific to linear relationships, and
there might still be the possibility of a nonlinear relationship that is not
captured by the correlation coefficient.