Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 199 views

    Web Case

    Uploaded by

    Suraj Nair
    1) The data collection procedures used by CCACC to form its conclusions about Oxford Cereals are flawed because they involved convenience sampling rather than random sampling and used too small a sample size. 2) Testing of data from two cereal plants found the average weight of boxes from Plant 1 was 372.44 grams and Plant 2 was 365.64 grams, below the claimed 368 grams. However, separate variance t-testing found no statistical difference between the mean weights. 3) It would be incorrect to conclude the filling process differs between plants based on the small, biased samples used by CCACC in their investigation of Oxford Cereals.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Web Case

    Uploaded by

    Suraj Nair
    199 views13 pages
    1) The data collection procedures used by CCACC to form its conclusions about Oxford Cereals are flawed because they involved convenience sampling rather than random sampling and used too small a sample size. 2) Testing of data from two cereal plants found the average weight of boxes from Plant 1 was 372.44 grams and Plant 2 was 365.64 grams, below the claimed 368 grams. However, separate variance t-testing found no statistical difference between the mean weights. 3) It would be incorrect to conclude the filling process differs between plants based on the small, biased samples used by CCACC in their investigation of Oxford Cereals.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The data collection procedures used by CCACC to form its conclusions about Oxford Cereals are flawed because they involved convenience sampling rather than random sampling and used too small a sample size. 2) Testing of data from two cereal plants found the average weight of boxes from Plant 1 was 372.44 grams and Plant 2 was 365.64 grams, below the claimed 368 grams. However, separate variance t-testing found no statistical difference between the mean weights. 3) It would be incorrect to conclude the filling process differs between plants based on the small, biased samples used by CCACC in their investigation of Oxford Cereals.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    199 views13 pages

    Web Case

    Uploaded by

    Suraj Nair
    1) The data collection procedures used by CCACC to form its conclusions about Oxford Cereals are flawed because they involved convenience sampling rather than random sampling and used too small a sample size. 2) Testing of data from two cereal plants found the average weight of boxes from Plant 1 was 372.44 grams and Plant 2 was 365.64 grams, below the claimed 368 grams. However, separate variance t-testing found no statistical difference between the mean weights. 3) It would be incorrect to conclude the filling process differs between plants based on the small, biased samples used by CCACC in their investigation of Oxford Cereals.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 13

    Managerial Statistics WEB CASE

    Click to edit Master subtitle style

    4/28/12

    Chapter 7
    1). Data Collection procedures followed CCACC to form its conclusions are flawed, because theyve followed Convenience Sampling They should have followed Simple Random Sampling to make their conclusions more accurate. Also sample size used should be more than 5 units. 2) (a) Oxford Os mean weight: (360.4 + 361.8 + 362.3 + 364.2 +371.4 )/5 =(1820.1)/5 = 364.02
    4/28/12 Oxford Alpine frosted flakes mean weight:

    Parameters

    Oxford Os 368 364.02 15 -0.59 -1.64

    Alpine 368 368.04 15 0.006 -

    (b)

    Z Z(Critical)

    4/28/12

    3). It will be incorrect to conclude about the filling process of the two cereals, as the conclusion is drawn using biased samples of 5 units each.

    4). Yes, the request is reasonable because allegations backed with ample evidence.

    is not

    5). Yes, such techniques can be used if we take an unbiased sample by using simple random sampling. In such scenario, if there is any cheating case it can be proved by CCACC.

    4/28/12

    Oxford Cereal chapter 9


    The Null &Alternate hypothesis are as follows H0 : < 368 H1 : > 368 As depicted the p value 0.07<0.05 hence we cannot reject the null hypothesis The independent testing is thus valid and the results prove that oxford cereals are not cheating its customers
    4/28/12

    Oxford Cereal chapter 9


    The confidence level for the mean weight of the box contents is 367.16 < < 373.71 This implies that the contents of the box could weigh anything up to 373.71 grams,hence Oxford cereals claim that many boxes contain more than 368 grams is not surprising and is true. Possibility that the public experiment and the CCACC claim can both be right exists 4/28/12 because the sample size taken in both cases could have been

    Chapter 10- OXFORD CEREALS


    Q. On a recent purchase of a new sample of cereal boxes--ten produced at Plant #1 and ten produced at Plant #2. It was discovered that the average weight of Plant #1 boxes was 372.44 grams, but that the average weight of Plant #2 was 365.64 grams, less than the 368 grams claimed. Even after the recent public experiment about cereal box weights, the CCACC remains convinced that Oxford Cereals has mislead public. 1. 2. Do the CCACCs results prove that there is a statistical difference in the mean weights of cereal boxes produced at Plant# 1 and 2? Perform the appropriate analysis to test the CCACCs hypothesis. What conclusions can you reach based on the data?
    4/28/12

    Solution
    Samples are randomly and independently drawn. Populations are normally distributed Population variances are unknown If population variances are equal, the pooled-variance t test is appropriate Here, use a separate-variance t test, which includes the two separate sample variances in the computation of the test statistic We have 2 sets of data where the variances are unknown, so we have 2 options here. We can either apply POOLED-VARIANCE t-test or SEPARATE VARIANCE t-test. So we will apply F-test here to decide for the2same.

    S1 F= 2 S2

    4/28/12

    DATA
    Plant 1 375.28 368.19 356.98 366.1 379.84 365.51 376.39 398.66 353.09 384.37 Plant 2 364.51 367.95 368.62 370.25 345.45 359.36 379.64 378.71 358.14 4/28/12 363.74

    F-test
    F-Test Two-Sample for Variances Variable 1 372.441 180.8843 10 9 1.787974 0.199863 3.178893 Variable 2 365.637 101.1672 10 9 Mean Variance Observations df F P(F<=f) one-tail F Critical one-tail

    From the F-test we can see that variances are different, so we will apply separate variance t-test. 4/28/12

    SEPARATE VARIANCE t-test


    t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 372.441 365.637 Variance 180.884277 101.167201 Observations 10 10 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 17 t Stat 1.2811504 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.10867112 t Critical one-tail 1.73960673 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.21734224 4/28/12 t Critical two-tail 2.10981558

    Interpretations
    Two-tail test: Hypothesis: H0: 1 = 2 H1: 1 2 i.e., H0: 1 2 = 0 H1: 1 2 0 From the results, we can see that the t-value is less than 4/28/12 the t-critical, so we can accept our hypothesis.

    THANK YOU.

    4/28/12

    You might also like