Ch10-Solns-All Skuce 2e

Instructors Solutions Manual - Chapter 10
Chapter 10 Solutions

Develop Your Skills 10.1
1. Call the defects on the night shift population 1, and the defects on the day shift
population 2.
H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
> 0
= 0.05

1
x = 35.4,
2
x = 27.8, s
1
= 15.3, s
2
= 7.9, n
1
= 45, n
2
= 50
We are told that the population distributions of errors are normal.

( )
2.992
50
9 . 7
45
3 . 15
0 ) 8 . 27 4 . 35 (
) (
2 2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2 1 2 1
=
+

=
+

=
n
s
n
s
x x
t

Degrees of freedom: minimum of (n
1
1) and (n
2
1), so minimum (44, 49) = 44.
Closest row in the table is for 45 degrees of freedom.
p-value < 0.005

Reject H
0
. There is sufficient evidence to infer that the number of defects is higher
on the night shift than on the day shift, on average.

Using the Excel template, we find a more exact p-value of 0.00196.

MakingDecisionsAbouttheDifferencein
PopulationMeanswithTwoIndependent
Samples
Dothesampledataappeartobenormally
distributed? yes
Sample1StandardDeviation 15.3
Sample1Mean 35.4
Sample2Mean 27.8
Sample1Size 45
Sample2Size 50
HypotheticalDifferenceinPopulationMeans 0
tScore 2.99245
OneTailedpValue 0.00196
TwoTailedpValue 0.00393

Copyright 2011 Pearson Canada Inc. 234
2. Call the population of purchases by females population 1, and the purchases by
males population 2.
H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
> 0
= 0.025

We start by creating histograms of the sample data to check for normality.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
ValueofPurchase
DrugstorePurchases byFemales

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
s
ValueofPurchase
DrugstorePurchases byMales

Neither histogram is perfectly normal, with the purchases by females in particular
showing some skewness to the right. Note that these histograms were not designed
for comparison (classes are different for each), but to assess normality. We will
proceed, but with some caution.

We have the data in Excel, so can use the Data Analysis tool for the calculations.

tTest:TwoSampleAssumingUnequalVariances
Purchasesby
Males
Purchasesby
Females
Mean 32.42933333 27.82428571
Variance 85.32606381 23.95908791
Observations 15 14
HypothesizedMeanDifference 0
df 22
tStat 1.692875747
P(T<=t)onetail 0.05229717
tCriticalonetail 2.073873058
P(T<=t)twotail 0.10459434
tCriticaltwotail 2.40547274

The p-value for a one-tailed test is 0.0523. We fail to reject H
-0
. There is
insufficient evidence to conclude that average female purchases are higher than
average male purchases at this drugstore.

3. Use the Excel template to construct the confidence interval. Of course, this can also
be done manually with the formula ( )
2
2
2
1
2
1
2 1
n
s
n
s
score t x x + .

ConfidenceIntervalEstimateforthe
DifferenceinPopulationMeans
Dothesampledataappeartobe
normallydistributed? yes
Sample1Mean $32.43
Sample2Mean $27.82
Sample1Size 15
Sample2Size 14
ConfidenceLevel(decimalform) 0.95
UpperConfidenceLimit 10.2621
LowerConfidenceLimit 1.052

With 95% confidence, we estimate that the interval (-1.05, 10.26) contains the true
average difference in the purchase of females, compared to males, at this drugstore.
We expect this interval to contain zero, since we failed to reject the hypothesis that
the difference was zero in Exercise 2.

4. Call the population of daily sales last year population 1, and the daily sales this year
population 2.
H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
< 0
= 0.03

We start by creating histograms of the sample data to check for normality.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
DailySales
SampleofHotDogVendor's Daily
Sales,LastYear

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
DailySales
SampleofHotdog VendorDailySales,
ThisYear

While neither histogram is perfectly normal, they are approximately normal, and
sample sizes are fairly large, at 30 and 35.

Again, using Excel, we obtain the following results.

LastYear'sDailySales ThisYear'sDailySales
Mean 298.2857143 356.0666667
Variance 3368.915966 593.9954023
Observations 35 30
df 47
tStat 5.36356487
P(T<=t)onetail 1.21835E06
P(T<=t)twotail 2.4367E06

The p-value is quite small, and certainly less than = 0.03. Reject H
0
. There is
sufficient evidence to infer that daily sales are higher this year than last year, on
average.

5. Call the listening times of the listeners aged 25 and younger, population 1, and the
listening times of the listeners over 25, population 2.
H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
0
= 0.05

1
x = 256.8,
2
x = 218.3, s
1
= 50.3, s
2
= 92.4, n
1
= 30, n
2
= 35

( )
125 . 2
35
4 . 92
30
3 . 50
0 ) 3 . 218 8 . 256 (
n
s
n
s
) x x (
t
2 2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2 1 2 1
=
+

=
+

=

Degrees of freedom, for the by-hand method: minimum (29, 34) = 29.
0.010 2 < p-value < 0.025 2
0.020 < p-value < 0.05

Since p-value is < = 0.05, reject H
0
. There is sufficient evidence to infer that
listening habits differ (in terms of average listening time), by age.


Develop Your Skills 10.2
6. H
0:
there is no difference in the locations of the populations of ratings for trainees #1
and #2
H
1
: there is a difference in the locations of the populations of ratings for trainees #1
and #2
= 0.025
Since these are ranked data, we must use the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test. First, we
have to see if the distributions are similar in shape and spread. With so few data
points, this can be difficult to see. Below are two quick dot plots (you could also do
a histogram with Excel) that reveal similarities in shape and spread.

Ratings for Trainee #1

*
* * *
* * * * *
1 2 3 4 5

Ratings for Trainee #2

*
*
* *
* * * *
1 2 3 4 5 6

The table below illustrates the ranking process.

Performance Ratings
Trainee #1 ordered
ratings
ranks Trainee #2 ordered
ratings
ranks
1 1 1 4 2 2.5
5 2 2.5 5 4 8
3 3 4.5 4 4 8
2 3 4.5 5 5 13.5
3 4 8 6 5 13.5
4 4 8 2 5 13.5
4 4 8 5 5 13.5
5 5 13.5 5 6 17
4 5 13.5
rank sum 63.5 rank sum 89.5


We need only calculate the rank sum for the smallest sample, which is the ratings for
Trainee #2, but both are shown here. Note that the tables are set up to for W
1
to be
calculated from the smallest sample, so W
1
= 89.5 here (even though these are the
ratings for Trainee #2). So, n
1
= 8, and n
2
= 9.

Because sample sizes are below 10, we must use the tables to estimate the p-value.
We see from the table that
0.046 < P(W > 89.5) < 0.057
Since this is a two-tailed test,
0.046 2 < p-value < 0.057 2
0.092 < p-value < 0.114

Fail to reject H
0
. There is insufficient evidence to infer there is a difference in the
locations of the ratings of Trainee #1 and Trainee #2. Note the implications of this
result. If you simply looked at the ratings, you probably would have concluded that
the ratings for Trainee #2 were higher. However, they are not significantly higher,
and the difference could just be a result of sampling variability. This means that
Trainee #2 should not be promoted over Trainee #2 on the basis of these ratings.
Some other criteria will have to be used to decide which trainee to promote.

7. H
0:
there is no difference in the locations of the populations of distances travelled by
the current best-selling golf ball and the new golf ball
H
1
: the population of distances travelled by the current best-selling golf ball is to the
left of the population of distances travelled by the new golf ball

= 0.05

First, we must check the histograms for normality.

0
1
2
3
4
5
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Metres
DistancesTravelledbyCurrent BestSelling
GolfBall

0
1
2
3
4
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Metres
DistancesTravelledbyNewGolfBall

Both histograms are non-normal, but they are similar in shape and spread, so we
proceed with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.
We will use Excel to analyze these data.

WilcoxonRankSumTestCalculations
sample1size 12
sample2size 15
W1 221
W2 157

We will use the template for the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test for independent samples.

MakingDecisionsAboutTwoPopulation
Locations,TwoIndependentSamplesofNon
NormalQuantitativeDataorRankedData
(WRST)
Sample1Size 12
Sample2Size 15
Arebothsamplesizesatleast10? yes
Arethesamplehistogramssimilarinshape
andspread? yes
W1 221
W2 157
zScore(basedonW1) 2.58613519

Again, for consistency, we have selected Sample 1 as the smallest sample, so that we
assign W
1
as the rank sum of the smallest sample, which contains the distances
travelled by the new golf ball. We see that n
1
= 12, and n
2
= 15. Since both are > 10,
we can use the normal approximation to the sampling distribution of W
1
.
If the distances travelled by the new golf ball are longer, we would expect W
1
to be
high.
p-value = P(W
1
> 221) = 0.005
The p-value < = 0.05. Reject H
0
. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that the
population of distances travelled by the current best-selling ball is to the left of the
population of distances travelled by the new golf ball. Note this is equivalent to
saying the distances travelled by the new golf ball are to the right of the distances
travelled by the current best-selling ball.

8. H
0:
there is no difference in the locations of the flight delays before takeoff before
and after the redesign of the airport
H
1
: the location of the population of flight delays before takeoff before the redesign
of the airport is to the right of the population of flight delays before takeoff after
the redesign of the airport
= 0.05

These are quantitative data, so we must check histograms.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Minutes
FlightDelaysBeforeTakeoff, Before
AirportRedesign

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Minutes
FlightDelaysBeforeTakeoff, After
AirportRedesign

The histogram for the flight delays after the airport redesign appears non-normal.
The data sets are not that similar in shape and spread. We will use the Wilcoxon
Rank Sum Test, but we will be cautious about drawing conclusions about location
only.

Since the data are available in Excel, we can use the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test
Calculations tool to get the rank sums, and then use the template to calculate the p-
value. The results are shown below.

Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Calculations
sample 1 size 35
sample 2 size 35
W1 1352.5
W2 1132.5

(WRST)
Sample1Size 35
Sample2Size 35
andspread? no
W1 1352.5
W2 1132.5

This is a one-tailed test, so p-value = 0.098 > = 0.05. There is insufficient
evidence to infer that the population of flight delays before takeoff before the airport
redesign is to the left of the population of flight delays before takeoff after the airport
redesign.

9. H
0:
there is no difference in the locations of the weight losses for young women aged
18-25 who take the diet pill, compared with those who do not take the diet pill
H
1
: the location of the population of weight losses for the young women aged 18-25
who take the diet pill is to the right of the population of weight losses of the
young women who do not take the diet pill
= 0.04

We are told the distributions of weight-loss are non-normal, and that both are skewed
to the right, so there is similarity in shape of the distributions. No indication is given
of the spread of the data, so we will assume similar spreads, noting that our
conclusions may not be valid if this is not the case.

We are given the rank sums, and can proceed manually, or use the Excel template.
The completed Excel template is shown below. Of course, you could also do this
calculation with the formulas.

(WRST)
Sample1Size 25
Sample2Size 25
andspread? yes
W1 700
W2 575

If the weight losses with the diet pill are higher, we would expect W
1
to be high. The
p-value for a one-tailed test is 0.113, which is > = 0.04.

Fail to reject H
0
. There is insufficient evidence to infer that the population of weight
losses of the young women aged 18-25 who took the diet pill is to the right of the
population of weight losses for those who did not take the diet pill.

10. H
0:
there is no difference in the locations of the populations of food ratings by
weeknight and weekend diners at a restaurant
H
1
: there is a difference in the locations of the populations of food ratings by
weeknight and weekend diners at a restaurant

= 0.05

These are ranked data, so we must examine the distributions for similarity in shape
and spread. The dot plots below (created simply in Excel) illustrate.

Dot Plot for Ratings of Weeknight Diners

*
* *
* *
* * * *
1 2 3 4 5

Dot Plot for Ratings of Weekend Diners

*
* *
* * *
* * *
1 2 3 4 5

There is some similarity in shape, as both dot plots are skewed to the right. However,
there is much less variability in the ratings of the weekend diners. We will proceed
with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, but we must be cautious about making
conclusions about location.

The assignment of ranks is illustrated in the following table.

Rating by Weeknight
Diners
Ordered
Ratings
Rank
Ratings by
Weekend
Diners
Ordered
Ratings
Rank
4 1 4.5 1 1 4.5
5 1 4.5 3 1 4.5
1 1 4.5 2 1 4.5
2 1 4.5 1 1 4.5
1 2 11 1 2 11
2 2 11 1 2 11
2 2 11 3 3 15
1 4 17 2 3 15
1 5 18 3 3 15
86 85

If there was a difference in the food ratings by weeknight and weekend diners at the
restaurant, we would expect W
1
and W
2
to be different. They are very similar here.

p-value = 2 P(W
1
> 86)

Since both samples are of size 9, we must use the tables to approximate the p-value.
The closest value in the table to 86 is 104, so we can be sure P(W
1
> 86) > 0.057.
This means the p-value > 2 0.057 = 0.114.

Fail to reject H
0
. There is not enough evidence to conclude there is a difference in the
food ratings by weekend and weeknight diners at the restaurant.

Chapter Review Exercises
Throughout these exercises, it is often possible to do the calculations manually, or with
Excel. Manual calculations are sometimes illustrated, and when they are not, the results
should be close to the Excel output.

1. It is preferable to use the t-test, if the necessary conditions are met, because it is
harder to reject the null hypothesis with the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test. The t-test
uses all of the information available from the sample data, while the WRST uses the
ranks, not the actual values. Any time we can use the actual values to make a
decision, we should.

2. If population 1 was to the right of population 2, we would expect the values in
sample 1 to be higher than the values in sample 2. As a result, the rank sum for
sample 1 should be larger than for sample 2. However, when there are 10
observations in each sample (so 20 values have to be ranked), the ranks have to add
up to 210. This means that the rank sum for sample 2 has to equal 210 78 = 132.
This tells us that the values in sample 1 are generally smaller and to the left of the
values in sample 2. Therefore, there is no evidence that population 1 is to the right of
population 2. The p-value here would be 1 P(W
1
78) = 1 0.022 = 0.978. Be sure
that you think about what the rank sums are telling you. This sample result would be
highly unexpected, but if you didn't think about it, you might slip and draw exactly
the wrong conclusion!

3. When samples are different sizes, they will tend to have different rank sums, even if
they come from equivalent populations. The smaller sample will have a smaller rank
sum, simply because there are fewer data points. So, when comparing rank sums, we
have to take this into consideration. The table is based on the rank sum being
calculated from the smallest of the two samples. The conclusions could be wrong if
you mistakenly calculate W from the larger sample.

4. The unequal-variances version is preferred because:
i. The unequal-variances version of the t-test will lead to the right decision, even if the
variances are in fact equal (with very few exceptions).
ii. It can be hard to determine if variances are in fact equal, especially with small
sample sizes. Really, you should do another sample to test for equal variances.
Remember, the more times you skate across the same frozen lake, the more likely
you are to observe a rare eventfalling in!and the greater the chance of a Type
I error.
iii. If you mistakenly assume that variances are equal when they are not, results will be
unreliable, particularly when sample sizes are unequal (and especially when the
smaller sample has the larger variance).

5. The Excel template is preferred because the t-score will be more accurate than the
one used for the manual calculation.

6. Call the times managers spent on email in the past population 1, and the times
managers spend on emails after the new procedures have been implemented
population 2.
H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
> 0
= 0.05

1
x = 49.2,
2
x = 39.6, s
1
= 22.3, s
2
= 10.6, n
1
= 27, n
2
= 25
We are told that the population distributions of errors are normal.


( )
006 . 2
25
6 . 10
27
3 . 22
0 ) 6 . 39 2 . 49 (
) (
2 2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2 1 2 1
=
+

=
+

=
n
s
n
s
x x
t

Degrees of freedom: minimum of (n
1
1) and (n
2
1), so minimum (26, 24) =24.
Using the table for 24 degrees of freedom, we see
0.025 < p-value < 0.05
Reject H
0
. There is sufficient evidence to infer that the average time spent by
managers on email was lower after the new procedures were implemented.

7. With 90% confidence, we estimate that the interval (1.52 minutes, 17.68 minutes)
contains the true reduction in the average amount of time managers spend on email
after the new procedures. The completed Excel template is shown below. Of course,
this could also be done manually, using the formula ( )
2
2
2
1
2
1
2 1
n
s
n
s
score t x x + .

Sample1Mean 49.2
Sample2Mean 39.6
Sample1Size 27
Sample2Size 25

8. Call the hours spent doing unpaid work around the home by men in 2000 population
1, and the hours spent doing such work in 2009 population 2. Since it does not
appear that the same men were involved in the surveys, we will treat these as
independent samples.
H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
< 0
= 0.025

1
x = 2.2,
2
x = 2.6, s
1
= 0.6, s
2
= 1.3, n
1
= 55, n
2
= 55

We are told that the samples appear normally distributed, and so will assume the
population distributions are.

We can proceed to do the calculations manually, or with the Excel template. The
completed Excel template is shown below.

Samples
distributed? yes
Sample1Mean 2.2
Sample2Mean 2.6
Sample1Size 55
Sample2Size 55
tScore 2.0719

This is a one-tailed test, so the p-value is 0.021 < = 0.025.
Reject H
0
. There is sufficient evidence to infer that the average number of hours
men spend doing unpaid work around the home has increased in 2009, compared
with 2000.

9. This question can be done manually with the formula, or with the Excel template.
The completed template is shown below.

Sample1Mean 2.2
Sample2Mean 2.6
Sample1Size 55
Sample2Size 55

We have 95% confidence that the interval (-0.78 hours, -0.02 hours) contains the
change in the average amount of time men spend doing unpaid work around the
house in 2000, compared with 2009. This means that (0.02 hours, 0.78 hours)
contains the increase in the average amount of time spend doing unpaid work around
the house in 2009 compared with 2000.

10. H
0:
there is no difference in the locations of the population of ratings of the
appearance of the grocery store
H
1
: the location of the population of ratings of the appearance of the grocery store
six months ago is different from the location of the population of current ratings
of the grocery store

= 0.05

These are ranked data, so we must examine the distributions for similarity in shape
and spread. The diagrams below illustrate.

Ratings for Grocery Store Appearance Six Months Ago

* *
* *
* * *
* * * * *
1 2 3 4 5

Current Ratings for Grocery Store Appearance

* *
* *
* * *
* * * *
1 2 3 4 5

The ratings appear to be similar in shape and spread. The assignment of ranks is
illustrated below.

Appearance Ratings Six
Months Ago
Ordered
Ratings
Ranks
Current Appearance
Ratings
Ordered
Ratings
Ranks
5 1 1.5 1 1 1.5
4 2 3 5 3 5.5
5 3 5.5 4 3 5.5
4 3 5.5 5 4 11.5
2 4 11.5 4 4 11.5
1 4 11.5 4 4 11.5
4 4 11.5 5 4 11.5
4 4 11.5 3 5 19.5
3 5 19.5 5 5 19.5
3 5 19.5 4 5 19.5
5 5 19.5 3 5 19.5
5 5 19.5 W1 136.5
W
2
139.5

As usual, we focus on the rank sum of the smallest sample, which contains the
current ratings for grocery store appearance.
n
1
= 11, n
2
= 12, W
1
= 136.5
Since both sample sizes are larger than 10, we can use the normal approximation to
the sampling distribution of W
1
.

24807681 . 16
12
) 1 12 11 )( 12 ( 11
12
) 1 n n ( n n
2 1 2 1
W
1
=
+ +
=
+ +
=
o

132
2
) 1 12 11 ( 11
2
) 1 n n ( n
2 1 1
W
1
=
+ +
=
+ +
=

28 . 0
24807681 . 16
132 5 . 136
1
1
1
=
=
W
W
W
z
o

This is a two-tailed test. If the ratings are different, then W
1
would be high. The p-
value will be 2 P(W
1
> 136.5) = 2 P(z > 0.28) = 2 (1 0.6103) = 0.7794.
Fail to reject H
0
. There is insufficient evidence to infer that there is a difference
between the locations of the populations of grocery store ratings for appearance six
months ago and currently.

Of course, you could also use the Excel template to do these calculations. It is shown
below.

(WRST)
Sample1Size 11
Sample2Size 12
andspread? yes
W1 136.5
W2 139.5

11. First, realize these are matched-pairs data. Prices are for the same book each year.
(Remember to think about whether you have independent or matched-pairs samples,
because the techniques for each are different.)

Next check to see if the differences are normally distributed. One possible histogram
of differences is shown below.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
(BookPriceLastYear) (BookPriceThisYear)
BookPriceComparison

The histogram is skewed to the right, but somewhat normal in shape.

The results of the Data Analysis tool for the t-test are shown below.

tTest:PairedTwoSampleforMeans
BookPrice
LastYear
BookPrice
ThisYear
Mean 14.54 12.426
Variance 30.37956842 30.895162
Observations 20 20
PearsonCorrelation 0.879011986
df 19
tStat 3.471780487
P(T<=t)onetail 0.001276846
P(T<=t)twotail 0.002553692

H
0
:
D
= 0
H
1
:
D
> 0
(The order of subtraction is (book price last year) (book price this year). If book
prices have decreased, this difference would be positive, on average.)
= 0.05

The p-value is 0.001 < 0.05. Reject H
0
. There is enough evidence to suggest that
book prices are lower this year than last year.

Note that this is not a random sample. These are books that are of interest to this
particular consumer. We should be cautious about drawing a conclusion about all
books, based on these data.
12. We are provided with summary data, and so can proceed either manually or with the
Excel template. We are told that the sample data are normally distributed, so the t-
test of the difference in means is appropriate.

We will refer to the population of the number of exercises required to master the
topic, according to professors, as population 1. The population of the number of
exercises required, according to the students experience, as population 2. We are
asked if the professors have unrealistic expectation of the number of exercises that
students need to master the topic. We interpret this to mean unrealistically high.
In this case, the alternative hypothesis will be that
1
-
2
> 0.

H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
> 0
= 0.01

1
x = 19.2,
2
x = 12.3, s
1
= 5.2, s
2
= 3.6, n
1
= 15, n
2
= 20

We are told the sample data appear normally distributed.
The completed Excel template is shown below.

Samples
distributed? yes
Sample1Mean 19.2
Sample2Mean 12.3
Sample1Size 15
Sample2Size 20
tScore 4.40765

The one tailed p-value is 0.0001, which is less than 1%. Reject H
0
. There is
sufficient evidence to infer that professors have unrealistically high expectations of
the number of exercises that students need to do to master this topic.
13. The completed Excel template is shown below.

Sample1Mean 19.2
Sample2Mean 12.3
Sample1Size 15
Sample2Size 20

We have 99% confidence that the interval (2.5, 11.3) contains the true
overestimation of the number of exercises required to master this topic, compared to
the actual experience of students. We would not particularly expect this interval to
contain zero, since the hypothesis test in Exercise 12 concluded that professors have
higher expectations about the number of exercises required to master a topic,
compared with students. The 99% confidence interval is wider than the interval that
directly corresponds to the hypothesis test in exercise 12 (the tail area there would be
1%; for a 99% confidence interval, there is only % in each tail). However, even
the wider interval does not contain zero.

14. H
0
:
A
-
B
= 0
H
1
:
A
-
B
0
= 0.05

A
x = 862,
B
x = 731, s
A
= 362, s
B
= 223, n
A
= 31, n
B
= 25


Samples
distributed? yes
Sample1StandardDeviation 362
Sample1Mean 862
Sample2Mean 731
Sample1Size 31
Sample2Size 25
tScore 1.66151

The two-tailed p-value is 0.103 > . Fail to reject H
0
. There is insufficient evidence
to infer there is a difference in the number of pages produced by the two brands of
cartridges, under these conditions.


Sample1Mean 862
Sample2Mean 731
Sample1Size 31
Sample2Size 25

We have 90% confidence that the interval (-1.1, 263.19) contains the difference in
the number of pages produced by the two brands of printer cartridge, under these
conditions.

16. We will refer to the population of wait times for ITM support as population 1, and
the population of wait times for Dull support as population 2.

H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
0
= 0.05

1
x = 8.5,
2
x = 6.5, s
1
= 2.6, s
2
= 1.9, n
1
= 34, n
2
= 36


Samples
distributed? yes
Sample1Mean 8.5
Sample2Mean 6.5
Sample1Size 34
Sample2Size 36
tScore 3.65697

The two-tailed p-value is 0.00054 < . Reject H
0
. There is sufficient evidence to
infer there is a difference in average wait times for support between the ITM and
Dull computers.


Sample1Mean 8.5
Sample2Mean 6.5
Sample1Size 34
Sample2Size 36

We have 95% confidence that the interval (0.91 minutes, 3.09 minutes) contains the
true extra average wait time for support for the ITM computers, compared with the
Dull computers.

This confidence interval corresponds directly to the two-tailed hypothesis test in
Exercise 16. Since the null hypothesis of no difference was rejected there, we would
not expect this confidence interval to contain zero (and it does not).

18. Call the minutes the advisor spent with her clients in January a year ago population
1, and the minutes spent with clients this January population 2.
H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
< 0
= 0.03

First we must examine the sample data. Histograms indicate the data are
approximately normal.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Minutes
MinutesFinancialAdvisor Spent
withEachClientLastJanuary

0
2
4
6
8
10
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Minutes
MinutesFinancialAdvisor Spent
withEachClientThis January

The data are available on Excel, so it seems reasonable to use Excel to do the t-test.

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Minutes
Spent with
Each Client
Last January
Minutes
Spent with
Each Client
This January
Mean 50.63333333 59
Variance 281.7574713 597.8823529
Observations 30 35
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 60
t Stat -1.62607466
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.05458761
t Critical one-tail 1.917025767
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.109175221
t Critical two-tail 2.222923468

This is a one-tailed test. The p-value is 0.0546. This is not less than = 0.03.
Fail to reject H
0
. There is insufficient evidence to infer that the financial advisor
spent less time with her clients this January, compared to last January. In this case,
the p-value is on the low side (although not low enough). However, even if there
was sufficient evidence to reject H
0
, this would not necessarily imply that it the cause
was the increasing complexity of investment products. Since the clients were
different, it might simply be that one set of clients had more complex investment
needs than the other.


Sample1Mean 50.6333
Sample2Mean 59
Sample1Size 30
Sample2Size 35

With 97% confidence, we estimate that the interval (-19.8 minutes, 3.07 minutes)
contains the true difference between the average amount of time the advisor spent
with her clients in January a year ago, compared with this January.

20. Call the amount of time spent by sales reps in a two week period with the old
software population 1, and the amount of time spent by sales reps with the new
software population 2.

H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
> 0
= 0.04

First we must examine the sample data. Histograms indicate the data are
approximately normal, although the sample data for the old software are skewed to
the right. Also, sample sizes, at 30 and 35, are fairly large.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
MinutesinaTwoWeekPeriod
MinutesSpentbySalesRepsOn
Computer,OldSoftware

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
MinutesinaTwoWeekPeriod
MinutesSpentbySalesRepsOn
Computer,NewSoftware

The Excel output for the t-test is shown below.

Old
Software
New
Software
Mean 799.8 608
Variance 172199.5 68901.88
Observations 30 35
df 48
tStat 2.184543
P(T<=t)onetail 0.016919
P(T<=t)twotail 0.033838

This is a one-tailed test, so the p-value is 0.017 < = 0.04. Reject H
0
. There is
sufficient evidence to infer that the amount of time spent by sales reps over a two-
week period with the old software is more than the amount of time spent by sales
reps with the new software.

The new software may be the cause of the difference, or it might simply be that the
work of the two sets of sales reps was different over the two-week period. If there is
much week-to-week variability in the computer work done by sales reps, the test
might be conducted over a longer period. As well, it would be interesting to
compare the times spent by the 25 sales reps who used the old software for this
comparison, with their times when they adopt the new software (a matched pairs
comparison).


Sample1Mean 799.8
Sample2Mean 608
Sample1Size 30
Sample2Size 35

At a 96% confidence level, it is estimated that the interval (6.3 minutes, 377.3
minutes) contains the reduction in the amount of time that sales reps would spend
over a two-week period, if the new software was adopted.

22. The data are ranked, so the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test will be used to make the
comparisons.

H
0:
there is no difference in the locations of the populations of ratings of high-speed
Internet service for the cable TV company and the telephone company
H
1
: there is a difference in the locations of the populations of ratings of high-speed
Internet service for the cable TV company and the telephone company

= 0.025

Before we use the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test, we must examine the data to see we can
reasonably assume that the populations are similar in shape and spread.

Two possible bar graphs of the data are shown below.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 2 3 4 5
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
1=VerySatisfied,5=VeryDissatisfied
Ratingsof InternetServiceProvided by
theTelephone Company

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1 2 3 4 5
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
1=VerySatisfied,5=VeryDissatisfied
Ratingsof InternetServiceProvided by
theCableTVCompany

The distributions appear similar in shape and spread.

Since the data are available in an Excel file, it seems appropriate to do the
calculations in Excel. The output of the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Calculations is
shown below.

Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test Calculations
sample 1 size 35
sample 2 size 35
W1 1349
W2 1136

The relevant template is shown below.

(WRST)
Sample1Size 35
Sample2Size 35
andspread? yes
W1 1349
W2 1136

The two-tailed p-value is 0.21095. Fail to reject H
0
. There is insufficient evidence
to infer there is a difference in the locations of the populations of ratings of Internet
service by the cable TV company and the telephone company.

23.
a. The data are ranked, so we consider the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test.

H
0:
there is no difference in the locations of the populations of ratings of the old
instructions and the new instructions for lawnmower assembly
H
1
: the location of the population of ratings of the old instructions is to the right of the
population of ratings of the new instructions for lawnmower assembly (a higher-
numbered rating means greater difficulty)

= 0.05

The requirement is that the distributions are similar in shape and spread. Two graphs
of the data are shown below.

0
5
10
15
1 2 3 4 5
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
1=VeryEasytoReadandFollow,5=Very
DifficulttoReadandFollow
Ratingsfor OldLawnmower
AssemblyInstructions

0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
1=VeryEasytoReadandFollow,5=Very
DifficulttoReadandFollow
Ratingsfor NewLawnmower
AssemblyInstructions


The distributions are similar in spread, but not in shape. Any conclusion we make
from the Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test will be weaker, as a result.

The ranking could of course be completed manually. The output from the Wilcoxon
Rank Sum Test Calculations is shown below.

WilcoxonRankSumTestCalculations
sample1size 37
sample2size 42
W1 1697
W2 1463

Since both sample sizes are more than 10, we will use the Excel template to estimate
p-value.

(WRST)
Sample1Size 37
Sample2Size 42
andspread? no
W1 1697
W2 1463

p-value = 0.016
Reject H
0
. There is sufficient evidence to infer that population distributions of
ratings for the old and new instructions are different. We have seen that there is a
difference in shape, but given the marked differences in the frequencies of the "1"
and "5" ratings, we are probably safe to conclude that customers find the new
instructions easier to read and follow.

b. These data are quantitative, and the samples are independent. We must check for
normality before proceeding. Two possible histograms for the sample data are
shown below.

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Minutes
LawnmowerAssemblyTimeswithOld
Instructions

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
Minutes
LawnmowerAssemblyTimeswithNew
Instructions

Both distributions seem approximately normal. The distribution of times for the new
instructions is somewhat skewed to the right. However, samples sizes (37 and 42) are
fairly large, and we will proceed with the t-test.

H
0
:
1
-
2
= 0
H
1
:
1
-
2
> 0
= 0.04

The Excel output for this data set is shown below.

Assembly
Times
(Minutes)
WithOld
Instructions
Assembly
Times
(Minutes)
WithNew
Instructions
Mean 64.43243243 47.5952381
Variance 379.9189189 216.4907085
Observations 37 42
df 67
tStat 4.287366909
P(T<=t)onetail 2.96486E05
P(T<=t)twotail 5.92972E05

The p-value for the one-tailed test is 0.0000296 < 0.04

Reject H
0
. There is sufficient evidence to infer the assembly times for consumers
using the new instructions are lower than for consumers using the new instructions.

Ch10-Solns-All Skuce 2e

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch10-Solns-All Skuce 2e

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Instructors Solutions Manual - Chapter 10

You might also like