FINAL EXAMINATION IN STATISTICS

Jan Mayeen E. Salazar MAED FILIPINO

Direction: Solve using step wise method.

1. Recent recession and bad economic conditions forced many people to hold more
than one job to make ends meet. A sample of 500 persons who held more than
one job produced the following two-way table.
Single Married Other
Male 72 209 39
Female 33 102 45

Test at the 10% or .1 significance level whether gender and mental status are related
for all people who hold more than one job.
I. Problem
Is there a significant relationship between male and female whether gender
and marital status are related for all people who hold more than one job
II. Hypothesis
HO – There is no significant relationship between male and female whether
gender and marital status are related for all people who hold more than
one job
H1 - There is a significant relationship between male and female whether
gender and marital status are related for all people who hold more than
one job
III. Level of Significance
a= .10
df = (c-1) (r-1)
= (2-1) (2-1)
= (1) (1)
=1
X .10 = 2.706
2

IV. Statistics
SEX SINGLE MARRIED OTHER TOTAL
O E O E O E
Male 72 67.2 209 199.04 39 53.76 320
Female 33 37.8 102 111.96 45 30.24 180
Total 105 311 84 500

V. Decision Rule
 The computed value X2 is greater than the tabular value, the null value is
rejected.
VI. Conclusion
The X2 computed value of 13.593 is greater than the X 2 tabular value of
2.706 at .10 level of significance with one degree of freedom. This leads
to the confirmation there is a significant relationship between male and
female whether gender and marital status are related for all people who
hold more than one job.
2. A researcher wanted to find out whether the population distributions of salaries
of computer programmers are identical in three cities, Boston, San Francisco,
and Atlanta. Three different samples-one from each city-produced the following
data on the annual salaries (in thousands of dollars) of computer programmers.

Boston San Francisco Atlanta

43 54 57
39 33 68
62 58 60
73 38 44
51 43 39
46 55 49
34 57
Using the 2% or .02 level of significance, can you conclude the population
distribution of salaries for computer programmers in these three cities are all identical?
I. Problem
Is there a significance difference in the population distribution of
salaries for computer programmers in the three cities?
II. Hypothesis
H0 – There is no significance difference in the population distribution of
salaries for computer programmers in the three cities.
H1 – There is a significance difference in the population distribution of
salaries for computer programmers in the three cities
III. Level of Significance
a= .02
df= h-1
= 3-1
=2
X2.02 = 7.824
IV. Statistics
Number Observation Rank
1 33 1
2 34 2
3 38 3
4 39 4.5
5 39 4.5
6 43 6.5
7 43 6.5
8 44 8
9 46 9
10 49 10
11 51 11
12 54 12
13 55 13
14 57 14.5
15 57 14.5
16 58 16
 17 60 17
18 62 18
19 68 19
20 73 20

Boston R1 San R2 Atlanta R3

Francisco
43 6.5 54 12 57 14.5
39 4.5 33 1 68 19
62 18 58 16 60 17
73 20 38 3 44 8
51 11 43 6.5 39 4.5
46 9 55 13 49 10
34 2 57 14.5
N1=6 ∑ R 1= 69 N2= 7 ∑ R 2= N3=7 ∑ R 3=
53.5 87.5
R1= 11.5 R2=7.64 R3=12.5

V. Decision Rule
The H computed value is less than the X2 tabular value, the null
hypothesis is accepted.
VI. Conclusion
Since the H-computed value of 2.604 is lesser than the X 2 tabular
value of 7.824 at .02 level of significance with 2 degrees of
freedom, the null hypothesis is accepted. This means there is no
significance difference in the population distribution of salaries for
computer programmers in the three cities. It can also concluded
that the population distribution of salaries for computer
programmers in the three cities are all identical.
3. A fishing line is being manufactured by two companies. To determine if there is a
difference in the mean breaking strength of the lines, 6 pieces from each
company are selected at random and tested for breaking strength. The results
are:

Company A 10.4 8.8 10.5 9.9 10.9 11.0

Company B 11.1 8.7 9.5 7.8 6.2 5.9

Use the Wilcoxon rank – sum test at .05 level of significance if there is a
difference in the mean breaking strength of lines manufactured by two
companies.

I. Problem
Is there a significance difference in the mean breaking strength of
lines manufactured by two companies?
 II. Hypothesis
HO – There is no significance difference in the mean breaking strength
of lines manufactured by two companies
H1 - There a significance difference in the mean breaking strength of
lines manufactured by two companies
III. Level of Significance
a = .05
df = n1 = 6 n2 = 6
U.05 = 5

IV. Statistics
No. Observation from Both Rank
Groups
1 5.9 1
2 6.2 2
3 7.8 3
4 8.7 4
5 8.8 5
6 9.5 6
7 9.9 7
8 10.4 8
9 10.5 9
10 10.9 10
11 11.0 11
12 11.1 12

Company A Rank Company B Rank

10.4 8 11.1 12
8.8 5 8.7 4
10.5 9 9.5 6
9.9 7 7.8 3
10.9 10 6.2 2
11.0 11 5.9 1
N1 = 6 W1= 50 N2 = 6 W2= 28

Given:
N1 = 6 W1= 50

N2 = 6 W2= 28
 V. Decision Rule
The computed U- value is greater than the tabular value, the null
hypothesis is accepted.
VI. Conclusion
Since the U2 computed value of 7 is greater than the tabular value
of 5 at .05 level of significance with N1 = 6 and N2 = 6 degrees of
freedom, the null hypothesis is accepted in favor of the research
hypothesis that there is no significance difference in the mean
breaking strength of lines manufactured by two companies,
implying that the fishing line being manufactured by two companies
have no difference in the mean breaking strength.

4. An educator has constructed a test for mechanical aptitude. He wants to

determine how reliable the test is over two administrators spaced by 1 month. A
study is conducted in which 10 students are given two administrators of the test,
with the second administration being 1 month after the first. The data are given
in the following table.
a. Determine the value of r
b. Use α = 0.05
Students Administration 1 Administration 2
1 10 10
2 12 15
3 20 17
4 25 25
5 27 32
6 35 37
7 43 40
8 40 38
9 32 30
10 47 49
I. Problem
Is there a significant relationship on how reliable the constructed test for
mechanical aptitude over two administrators spaced by 1 month given by the
10 students?
II. Hypothesis
HO – There is no significant relationship on how reliable the constructed
test for mechanical aptitude over two administrators spaced by 1 month
given by the 10 students
H1- There is a significant relationship on how reliable the constructed test
for mechanical aptitude over two administrators spaced by 1 month given
by the 10 students
III. Level of Significance
a= .05
df = n-2
= 10- 2
=8
r.05= .632
IV. Statistics
X Y X2 Y2 XY
 10 10 100 100 100
12 15 144 225 180
20 17 400 289 340
25 25 625 625 625
27 32 729 1024 864
35 37 1225 1369 1295
43 40 1849 1600 1720
40 38 1600 1444 1520
32 30 1024 900 960
47 49 2209 2401 2303
∑ x =¿ ¿291 ∑ x =¿ ¿293 ∑ x 2=¿ ¿ 990 ∑ y 2=¿ ¿997 ∑ xy =¿ ¿990
5 7 7
x = 29.1 x = 29.3

V. Decision Rule
The computed r value is greater than the tabular, the null hypothesis is
rejected.
VI. Conclusion
Since the computed value of r is .976 is greater than the tabular value
of .632 at .05 level of significance with 8 degrees of freedom, the null
hypothesis is disconfirmed in favour of the research hypothesis. This means
there is a significant relationship on how reliable the constructed test for
mechanical aptitude over two administrators spaced by 1 month given by the
10 students. It implies that the results of the constructed test question to
determine the reliable is effective and shows with the results of the two
administrators.
Coefficient of Determination
CD = r2 x 100%
 = (.976)2 x 100%
= .9525 X 100
= 95.25%
5. The data show the weight losses (in milligrams) of certain machine parts due to
friction when used with two different lubricants:

Lubricant X1 Lubricant X2
10 6
13 7
12 5
12 6
13 7
14 9
8 10
10 11
7 4
10 6
12
13
Test at .01 level of significance whether the difference between the two samples
means are significant.
I. Problem
Is there a significant difference between the samples of lubricant in
terms of the weight losses (in milligrams) of certain machine parts
due to friction?
II. Hypothesis
H0 – There is no significant difference between the samples of lubricant in
terms of the weight losses (in milligrams) of certain machine parts due to
friction
H1 –There is a significant difference between the samples of lubricant in
terms of the weight losses (in milligrams) of certain machine parts due to
friction.
III. Level of Significance
a= .01
df = n1 + n2 – 2
= 12 + 10 – 2
= 20
t.01 = 2.845 – tabular value at .005 (.01/2)
IV. Statistics
Lubricant X1 Lubricant X2
X1 X12
X2 X22
10 100 6 36
13 169 7 49
12 144 5 25
12 144 6 36
13 169 7 49
14 196 9 81
8 64 10 100
10 100 11 121
7 49 4 16
10 100 6 36
12 144
 13 169
∑ X 1= 134 2
∑ X = 1548
1 ∑ X 2= 71 2
∑ X 2= 549
N1= 12 N2= 10
x = 11.17 x = 7.1

V. Decision Rule
The t-computed is greater than the tabular/critical value, the null
hypothesis is rejected.
VI. Conclusion
Since the t-computed value of 4.330 is greater than the tabular
value of 2.845 at .005 level of significance with 20 degrees of
freedom, the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of the research
hypothesis. This means there is a significant difference between
the samples of lubricant in terms of the weight losses (in
milligrams) of certain machine parts due to friction. It implies that
there is a significance whether the difference between the two
samples means are significant.