1

Stat 501 HW#2 & #3

Probelm 4.
(a) One-Sample T: Prob4-tb4.2

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 99% CI

Prob4-tb4.2 25 48.00 10.30 2.06 (42.24, 53.76)

The 99% confidence interval for the average time is

(42.24, 53.76).

(b) One-Sample T: Prob4-tb4.2

Test of mu = 50 vs not = 50

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 99% CI

T P
Prob4-tb4.2 25 48.00 10.30 2.06 (42.24, 53.76)
-0.97 0.341

Since P=0.341, at significance level of 0.05, the mean is not significantly different
from 50 hours.

(c) Power and Sample Size

1-Sample t Test

Testing mean = null (versus not = null)

Calculating power for mean = null + difference
Alpha = 0.05 Assumed standard deviation = 10.3

Sample
Difference Size Power
2 25 0.153994

The power is only 0.153 for a difference of 2 hours.

 2

Power Curve
Power Curve for 1-Sample t Test
1.0
Sample
Size
25
0.8 A ssumptions
Alpha 0.05
StDev 10.3
Alternative Not =
0.6
Power

0.4

0.2

0.0
-2 -1 0 1 2
Difference

Problem 4.7
(a) One-Sample Z

Test of mu = 40 vs > 40
The assumed standard deviation = 11

95% Lower
N Mean SE Mean Bound Z P
30 44.00 2.01 40.70 1.99 0.023

Conclusions: As P=0.023 < 0.05, the mean is

significantly greater than 40 pounds.
So, I would support the program's claim.

(b) Power and Sample Size

1-Sample t Test
 3

Testing mean = null (versus > null)

Calculating power for mean = null + difference
Alpha = 0.05 Assumed standard deviation = 11

Sample Target
Difference Size Power Actual Power
3 85 0.8 0.802124

The power is 0.802 for a mean difference of 3 pounds.

Power Curve for 1-Sample t Test

Power Curve for 1-Sample t Test

1.0
Sample
Size
85
0.8 A ssumptions
A lpha 0.05
StDev 11
A lternative >

0.6
Power

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Difference

(c) Power Curve for 1-Sample t Test

Power and Sample Size

1-Sample t Test
 4

Testing mean = null (versus > null)

Calculating power for mean = null + difference
Alpha = 0.05 Assumed standard deviation = 11

Sample
Size Power Difference
30 0.8 5.11440

Power Curve for 1-Sample t Test

Power Curve for 1-Sample t Test
1.0
Sample
Size
30
0.8 A ssumptions
A lpha 0.05
StDev 11
A lternative >

0.6
Power

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Difference

Problem 4.8

One-Sample T: Prob8-tb4.5

Test of mu = 65 vs > 65

99% Lower
 5

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T

P
Prob8-tb4.5 12 69.33 7.58 2.19 63.38 1.98
0.037

Conclusions: Significantly greater than 65 mils/hr at 5% level, but not a 1% level.

Problem 4.9

(a) One-Sample T

Test of mu = 70 vs not = 70

N Mean StDev SE Mean 99% CI T

P
19 69.700 2.168 0.497 (68.268, 71.132) -0.60
0.554

Conclusion: Since P=.554 >>0.05, the mean is not significantly different from 70
even at 0.5 level of significant.

(b) One-Sample T

N Mean StDev SE Mean 99% CI

19 69.700 2.168 0.497 (68.268, 71.132)

A 99% CI for the true population mean is (68.268, 71.132).

Problem 4.10

(a) Inverse Cumulative Distribution Function

Student's t distribution with 27 DF

P( X <= x ) x
0.95 1.70329
 6

Pr(X > 1.70) = 0.05.

(b) Inverse Cumulative Distribution Function

Student's t distribution with 27 DF

P( X <= x ) x
0.9 1.31370
Pr(X> 1.313) = 0.10

(c) Inverse Cumulative Distribution Function

Student's t distribution with 27 DF

P( X <= x ) x
0.975 2.05183

Pr( -2.05183 < X < 2.05183) =.95

Problem 4.13

(a) Test and CI for One Proportion

Sample X N Sample p 95% CI

1 484 528 0.916667 (0.889743, 0.938799)

A 95% CI for the true proportion of satisfied

customers is (0.889743, 0.938799).
(b) Test and CI for One Proportion

Test of p = 0.9 vs p > 0.9

95% Lower Exact

Sample X N Sample p Bound P-Value
1 484 528 0.916667 0.894146 0.112

Conclusions: P=.112, the approval proportion is not significantly greater than 90%
at 0.05 level.
 7

Problem 4.14
(a) Test and CI for One Proportion

Test of p = 0.8 vs p > 0.8

95% Lower Exact

Sample X N Sample p Bound P-Value
1 1274 1286 0.990669 0.984925 0.000

Conclusion: Since P=0.000 which is extremely small, the evidence is very strong
to suggest that more than 80% of high school math teachers use calculators in their
classroom.

(b) Power and Sample Size

Test for One Proportion

Testing proportion = 0.8 (versus > 0.8)

Alpha = 0.05

Alternative Sample Target

Proportion Size Power Actual Power
0.85 286 0.7 0.700377
The sample size required is 286.

Power Curve for Test for One Proportion

 8

Power Curve for Test for One Proportion

1.0
Sample
Size
286
0.8 Assumptions
A lpha 0.05
Hypothesized p 0.8
A lternative >
0.6
Power

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Alternative Proportion

Problem 4.15

Test and CI for Two Proportions

Sample X N Sample p
1 (hi-sch) 4988 9275 0.537790
2 (coll) 5245 10286 0.509916

(a) Proportion of Hi-school graduates earning more than 40K

= 0.537790
(b) Proportion of college graduates earning more than 40K
=0.509916

(c)Test and CI for Two Proportions

Difference = p (1) - p (2)

Estimate for difference: 0.0278734
95% lower bound for difference: 0.0161158
 9

Test for difference = 0 (vs < 0): Z = 3.90 P-Value =

0.999

Fisher's exact test: P-Value = 0.999

Conclusions: Since P=0.99, proportion for college graduates who earn more than
40K can not be significantly higher than that for high school graduates.

Problem 4.16

(a) Descriptive Statistics: prob16-tb4.8

Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum

Q1 Median Q3
prob16-tb4.8 24 0 15.392 0.136 0.667 13.800
14.900 15.350 15.800

Variable Maximum
prob16-tb4.8 17.100

Answer:: Mean=15.392, SD=0.667

(b) One-Sample T: prob16-tb4.8

Test of mu = 15 vs not = 15

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 99% CI

T P
prob16-tb4.8 24 15.392 0.667 0.136 (15.009,
15.774) 2.88 0.009

Conclusions: As P-value=0.009 <.01, the true mean significantly deviate from the
specification of 15 cm. The process is not under control. Some justification of the
process needs to be done right now.
 10

[c] A 99% confidence interval of the population mean diameter for the parts is
(15.009, 15.774).

Problem 4.18
Test and CI for One Proportion

Sample X N Sample p 99% CI

1 938 1463 0.641148 (0.608081, 0.673286)

Answer: A 99% C.I. for the true proportion of US

households that watch more than one night per week is
(0.608081, 0.673286).

Problem 4.19

One-Sample T

N Mean StDev SE Mean 99% CI

1463 15.360 4.270 0.112 (15.072, 15.648)

Answer: A 99% confidence interval for the average

amount of television watched per week for US households
is (15.072, 15.648) in hours.

Problem 4.20

(a) Descriptive Statistics: Prob20tb4.9

Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum

Q1 Median Q3
Prob20tb4.9 36 0 24.28 2.23 13.37 2.00
15.00 25.00 34.25

Variable Maximum

Prob20tb4.9 57.00

Answer: mean = 24.28 miles, SD= 13.37 miles.

 11

(b) One-Sample T: Prob20tb4.9

Test of mu = 25 vs < 25
99% Upper
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound
T P
Prob20tb4.9 36 24.28 13.37 2.23 29.71
-0.32 0.374

Decision: P=0.374 >0.05 implies that the average distance of accidents from home
is not significantly less than 25 miles.

Power and Sample Size

(c)
1-Sample t Test

Testing mean = null (versus < null)

Calculating power for mean = null + difference
Alpha = 0.05 Assumed standard deviation = 13.37

Sample Target
Difference Size Power Actual Power
-5 46 0.8 0.803201

Answers: It needs a sample of size 46 to detect a

difference of 5 miles with probability 0.80.

Power Curve for 1-Sample t Test

 12

Power Curve for 1-Sample t Test

1.0
Sample
Size
46
0.8 A ssumptions
Alpha 0.05
StDev 13.37
Alternative <
0.6
Power

0.4

0.2

0.0
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Difference

Problem 4.21

(a) Descriptive Statistics: Weight Before, Weight After

Variable N N* Mean SE Mean StDev Minimum

Q1 Median Q3
Weight Before 24 0 182.21 5.97 29.24 129.00
164.75 176.50 203.75
Weight After 24 0 178.25 5.79 28.38 125.00
159.25 174.50 203.50

Variable Maximum
Weight Before 254.00
Weight After 238.00

Answers:
Weight Before : mean=182.21 pounds, SD=29.24 pounds;
Weight After: mean=178.25 pounds, SD=28.38 pounds.

(b) Before - After

0
 13

4
-2
2
8
6
16
8
2
3
3
2
9
4
4
6
-1
4
7
1
0
2
6
1

(c)
Paired T-Test and CI: Weight Before, Weight After

Paired T for Weight Before - Weight After

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Weight Before 24 182.21 29.24 5.97
Weight After 24 178.25 28.38 5.79
Difference 24 3.958 3.906 0.797

95% lower bound for mean difference: 2.592

T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs > 0): T-Value = 4.96
P-Value = 0.000
 14

Conclusion: The average loss is 3.958 pounds, with P-value of 0.000 (almost 0),
we can conclude
that participants of the weight loss program lost significant amount of weight in
average.

(d)
One-Sample T: Before-After
Test of mu = 0 vs > 0
99% Lower
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T
P
Before-After 24 3.958 3.906 0.797 1.965
4.96 0.000

Conclusions are the same as that in (c).

Problem 4.22
(a) Use Calc to find difference first No. in 2002 minus No. in 1997 = column
(Difference)

Do 95% confidence interval of the differences.

One-Sample T: Difference

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 95% CI

Difference 12 17704 25392 7330 (1570, 33837)

(b)
One-Sample T: Difference

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 98% CI

Difference 12 17704 25392 7330 (-2220, 37627)

(c) The 95% confidence interval is narrower than the 98% interval, and
the former does not include 0, while the latter includes 0.

(d) One-Sample T: Difference

Test of mu = 0 vs not = 0
 15

Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean 98% CI

T P
Difference 12 17704 25392 7330 (-2220, 37627)
2.42 0.034

Conclusions: Since P=0.034 <0.05, the mean difference is significantly different

from zero. In other words,
there was a significant difference in the mean number of business between 1997
and 2002 at 5% level of
significance.

(e)
Paired T-Test and CI: Number of Businesses 2002, Number of
Businesses 1997

Paired T for Number of Businesses 2002 - Number of

Businesses 1997

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Number of Businesses 200 12 402087 320011 92379
Number of Businesses 199 12 384384 314465 90778
Difference 12 17704 25392 7330

99% CI for mean difference: (-5062, 40469)

T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs not = 0): T-Value =
2.42 P-Value = 0.034

Conclusion: As P=0.034 >0.01, the mean differences are not significantly different
at 0.01 level, though
it is significantly different at 0.05 level.

(f)
Paired T-Test and CI: Number of Businesses 2002, Number of
Businesses 1997

Paired T for Number of Businesses 2002 - Number of

Businesses 1997

N Mean StDev SE Mean

 16

Number of Businesses 200 12 402087 320011 92379

Number of Businesses 199 12 384384 314465 90778
Difference 12 17704 25392 7330

99% lower bound for mean difference: -2220

T-Test of mean difference = 30000 (vs > 30000): T-Value
= -1.68 P-Value =
0.939

Conclusion: No, since P=.939, too large a P-value. The average of 2002 is not
significantly greater
than the average number in 1997 by more than 30,000.

(g) Comments on (d) and (e): whether significantly different or not depends on the
level of significance.
Larger level of significance will lead more likely to rejecting the null hypothesis.