Northwest Samar State University

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
ADVANCED STUDIES
Calbayog City

SUBJECT : STATISTICS
PROFESSOR : DR. FE C. MONTECALVO
TERM : 1ST SEMESTER, SY 2018-2019
STUDENT : JEFFREY T. JUMADIAO
COURSE : MAST-GEN.SCI

Problem 1 Pearson Product Coefficient of Correlation

Below are the data for ten students in the number of hours spent in studying and their
examination scores. Test the claim that the hours spent in study is related to the
examination scores of students.

. students Number of . hours studied examination scores

1 4 85
2 6 80
3 8 92
4 4 70
5 2 65
6 1 60
7 5 89
8 7 82
9 4 81
10 6 95

I. PROBLEM: Is there significant relationship between the number of hours studied

and the examination scores of ten students?
II. HYPOTHESIS
HO: There is no significant relationship between the number of hours studied and
the examination scores of ten students.
H1: There is significant relationship between the number of hours studied and the
examination scores of ten students.

no.
studen
s x y xy X2 Y2 X2y2
 1 4 85 340 16 7225 115600
2 6 80 480 36 6400 230400
3 8 92 736 64 8464 541696
4 4 70 280 16 4900 78400
5 2 65 130 4 4225 16900
6 1 60 60 1 3600 3600
7 5 89 445 25 7921 198025
8 7 82 574 49 6724 329476
9 4 81 324 16 6561 104976
10 6 95 570 36 9025 324900
2 2=¿¿ 2 2=¿¿
x=¿ 47 y=¿799 xy=¿ 3939 x =¿263 y 65045 x y 1943973

n xy−x y
r=
√ n x 2−¿ ¿ ¿
10 ( 3939 )−( 47 ) (799)
=
√10 ( 263 ) −( 47 ) 2 10 (65045 )−¿ ¿ ¿
1837
=
√ 609,250−600,625 650450−638401
1837
=
√ 42112049
1837
=
√ 5072629
8,375
= 2252.2 =0.81
III. DECISION RULE:
Characterizations of Pearson r  
.00 to ± .20 slight or negligible correlation
±.21 to ±.40 low correlation
±.41 to ±.70 moderate correlation
±.71 to ±.90 high correlation
±.91 to ±.99 very high correlation
±1.00 perfect correlation

IV. CONCLUSION
The r=0.81 which is highly correlated. Therefore the hours studied is highly
related to the examination scores of ten students

Problem 2: T-TEST (TWO INDEPENDENT SAMPLES)

 Listed below are the student evaluation scores of female professor and male
professors from course evaluation. Test claim that female professors and male
professors have the same mean evaluation rating. Does there appear to be difference?

females 4.4 3.4 4.8 2.9 4.4 4.9 3.5 3.7 3.4 4.8
males 4 3.6 4.1 4.1 3.5 4.6 4 4.3 4.5 4.3

I. PROBLEM: Is there significant difference between male professors and

female professors’ course evaluation?
II. HYPOTHESIS
HO: There is no significant difference between male professors and female
professors’ course evaluation
H1: There is significant difference between male professors and female
professors’ course evaluation

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal

Variances

  females males
Mean 4.02 4.1
0.51955 0.12444
Variance 6 4
Observations 10 10
Pooled Variance 0.322
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 18
t Stat -0.31524
0.37810
P(T<=t) one-tail 1
1.73406
t Critical one-tail 4
0.75620
P(T<=t) two-tail 2
2.10092
t Critical two-tail 2  
III. DECISION RULE
If the P-value is less than 0.5/0.1, reject HO
IV. CONCLUSION
Computed value is -0.315, P-value is 0.756. Fail to reject HO. there is no
sufficient evidence to warrant rejection of the claim that female professors
and male professors have same mean evaluation ratings. There does not
 appear to be a difference between male and female professors’ evaluation
scores

Problem 3: Z- Test one sample mean

The mean lifetime of a sample of 100 light tubes produces by a company is found to
be 1,580 hours. Test the hypothesis at 5% level of significance that the mean lifetime of
the tubes produces by the company is 1,600 hours with the standard deviation of 90
hours

I. PROBLEM: Is there significant difference between the samples and

II. HYPOTHESIS:
HO there is no significant difference between the 100 samples and mean
lifetime produced by the company
H1: there is significant difference between the 100 samples and mean lifetime
produced by the company

x́ = 1580 hours  = 90 hors

µ= 1600 hours n = 100

Z=x́− ¿ ¿ 1580−1600 −20

2
= 90 = 90 = .9 = -2.22
√n √ 100 100
III. DECISION RULE
If the computed value is less than the tabular value, reject the null hypothesis
IV. CONCLUSION

The computed value -2.22 is less than the tabular value +1.645. Therefore,
the null hypothesis is not rejected. Therefore there is significance difference
between the samples and the population mean of light tubes produced by the
company

Problem 4: ANOVA

ARKANSAS 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.9 6.0 6.1

CALIFORNIA 1.5 3.7 4.0 4.5 4.9 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.6

TEXAS 5.6 5.8 6.6 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.7
 Listed below are amounts in sample of brown rice from three different states. The
amounts are micrograms of arsenic and all samples have serving size. The data are
from the Food and Drug administration. Use a 0.05 significance level to test the claim
that the three samples are from population with the same mean. Do the amounts of
arsenic appear to be different in the different states? Given that the amounts samples
from Texas have the highest mean, can we conclude that brown rice from Texas poses
greatest health problem?

I. PROBLEM: is there significance difference among amount of Arsenic in samples

of brown rice from the three different states?
II. HYPOTHESIS

HO There is no significant difference among amount of arsenic in samples of

brown rice from the three different states.

H1 There is significant difference among amount of arsenic in samples of brown

rice from the three different states.

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (SINGLE FACTOR)

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Su
Groups Count m Average Variance
0.17477
Arkansas 12 65.7 5.475 3
1.41537
California 12 56.5 4.708333 9
0.47878
Texas 12 83.6 6.966667 8

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between 31.651666 22.9477
Groups 7 2 15.82583 5 5.68E-07 3.284918
Within 22.758333
Groups 3 33 0.689646

Total 54.41 35        
III. DECISION RULE
If the P-value is less than 0.5/0.1, reject HO
IV. INTERPRETATION
The P-value is less than 0.05/0.01 therefore reject the HO. There is significant
difference among amount of arsenic in samples of brown rice from the three
different states. We can concluded that brown rice from Texas poses greatest
health problem.

CHI-SQUARE OF INDEPENDENCE

A public opinion poll surveyed a simple random sample of 1000 voter.

Respondents were classified by gender (male or female) and by voting preference
(republican, democrats and independent). Results are shown in the table below.

voting preferences
republican democrat independent total
male 200 150 50 400
female 250 300 50 600
total 450 450 100 1000
I. PROBLEMS: Do the men’s voting preference differ significantly from the
women’s preferences?
II. HYPOTHESIS:
HO gender and voting preference are independent
H1 gender and voting preference are not independent
III. DECISION RULE:
If computed value is greater than tabular value, reject the null

Expected Frequency Computation

Observed freq. 400x 450 expected freq

200 = = 180
1000

400x 450
150 = = 180
1000
 400x 100
50 = = 40
1000

600 x 450
250 = = 270
1000

600 x 450
300 = = 270
1000

600 x 100
50 = = 60
1000

O E O-E (O-E)2 (O-E)2/E

200 180 20 400 2.22
150 180 -30 900 5
50 40 10 100 2.5
250 270 -20 400 1.48
300 270 30 900 3.33
50 60 10 100 1.67
16.2
df = (R – 1) (C – 1)
= (2 – 1) (3 – 1)
df = 2
df0.05 =5.991
IV. INTERPRETATION
The computed value is 16.2 greater than the tabular value of 5.991. Therefore
reject the null hypothesis. We conclude that there is relationship between
gender and voting preferences
Problem 3. CHI-SQUARE

List results from a reader’s digest experiment in which 12 wallets were intentionally lost
in each of 16 different cities, including New York City, London, Amsterdam and so on.
Use a 0.5 significance level with the data from table below to test the null hypothesis
that the cities have the same proportion of returned wallets. Test the claim that the
proportion of returned wallets is not the same in the 16 different cities.

CITIES A B C D E F G H I J K L MN O P
Wallet 1
8 5 7 5 8 6 7 3 1 4 2 4 6 4 9
returned 1
Wallet
1 1
not 4 7 5 1 7 4 6 5 9 8 8 6 8 3
1 0
returned

I. PROBLEM: Is there significant relationship between a lost wallet is returned and

the city in which it was lost
II. Hypothesis:
HO There is no significant relationship between a lost wallet that is returned and
the city in which it was lost
H1 There is no significant relationship between a lost wallet that is returned and
the city in which it was lost
III. Decision Rule
IV. CONCLUSION