Nsbe9ege Ism ch10

Chapter 10:
Hypothesis Testing: Additional Topics
10.1 n = 25 paired observations with sample means of 50 and 60 for populations 1 and 2. Can
you reject the null hypothesis at an alpha of .05 if
a. = 20,
= - 2.500, p-value = .990. Do not reject at alpha of .05

.
Paired T-Test and CI
N Mean StDev SE Mean

Difference 25 -10.00 20.00 4.00
95% lower bound for mean difference: -16.84
T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs > 0): T-Value = -2.50 P-Value = 0.990
b. = 30,
= -1.67, p-value = 0.946. Do not reject at alpha of .05


Difference 25 -10.00 30.00 6.00
c. = 15,


Difference 25 -10.00 15.00 3.00
95% lower bound for mean difference: -15.13T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs >
0): T-Value = -3.33 P-Value = 0.999
d. = 40,
Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

10-1
10-2 Statistics for Business and Economics, 9th Edition, Global Edition

Chapter 10: Hypothesis Testing: Additional Topics 10-3

Difference 25 -10.00 40.00 8.00
10.2 n = 25 paired observations with standard deviation of the difference between sample
means = 25. Can you reject the null hypothesis at an alpha of .05 if
a. The sample means are 56 and 50,
= 1.2, p-value = 0.879

Do not reject at alpha of .05

Difference 25 6.00 25.00 5.00
95% upper bound for mean difference: 14.55
T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs < 0): T-Value = 1.20 P-Value = 0.879
b. The sample means are 59 and 50,
= 1.8, p-value = 0.958. Do not reject at alpha of .05

Difference 25 9.00 25.00 5.00
c. The sample means are 56 and 48,
= 1.60, p-value = .939. Do not reject at alpha of .05

Difference 25 8.00 25.00 5.00
d. The sample means are 54 and 50,

= 0.8, p-value = .784. Do not reject at alpha of .05


Difference 25 4.00 25.00 5.00
10.3
Let x – Dutch Bank and y – Croatian Bank
H 0 : μx −μ y =0 ; H 1 : μ x −μ y ≠ 0 ;
0.0504−0
t= =2.002
0.3053
√ 147
The critical value(s) is(are) 1.655, -1.655. Reject H 0 .There is sufficient evidence of difference in
the two population means.

Difference 145 0.051800 0.305500 0.025370
95% CI for mean difference: (0.001654, 0.101946)
T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs not = 0): T-Value = 2.04 P-Value = 0.043
10.4 Let x – Initial urban home selling prices; y – Urban home selling prices over time
Urban home selling prices in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and Oakland,
Paired T-Test and CI: Sale 1 Price, Sale 2 Price

Paired T for Sale 1 Price - Sale 2 Price

Sale 1 Price 4000 61323 119893 1896
Sale 2 Price 4000 83585 118721 1877
Difference 4000 -22262 26231 415
95% lower bound for mean difference: -22944

Since, p-value is equal to 1.000, we do not reject the null hypothesis.
b)
Urban home selling prices in Atlanta,
= -31.44, p-value = 1.00. Do not reject at any levels of alpha.

Paired T for Sale 1 Price - Sale 2 Price


Sale 1 Price 1000 45451 23581 746
Sale 2 Price 1000 62015 29515 933
Difference 1000 -16564 16661 527
95% lower bound for mean difference: -17431
Since, p-value is equal to 1.000, we do not reject the null hypothesis.

10.5
Let x – took the preparation course; y – did not take the preparation course; n=20.
H 0 : μx −μ y ≤ 0 ; H 1 : μ x −μ y > 0; reject H 0 if t 19, 0.01> 2.539
d−D 0 5.35−0
t= = =2.159 .Do not reject H 0at the 1% level. There is insufficient evidence
sd / √ n 11.0800/ √ 20
that the true mean is higher for students taking the preparation course.
10.6 Let x – Process 1; y – Process 2
a. Reject if . For
α=0 . 05 , z α=z 0 . 05=1. 645 .
x̄− ȳ−D 0 50−60
z= = =−1 . 04
√ √
σ 2x σ 2y 900 1600
+ +
n n 25 28
x y
Do not reject at alpha of .05.
b. Reject if . For
α=0 . 05 , z α=z 0 . 05=1. 645 .
Reject at alpha of .05.
c. Reject if . For
α=0 . 05 , z α=z 0 . 05=1. 645 .


d. Reject if . For
α=0 . 05 , z α=z 0 . 05=1. 645 .
10.7
Let x – Process 1; y – Process 2
x− y
a. Reject H 0if 2 >t n + n −2 , α .For the given data, t n +n −2 ,α =1.666
√ s p /nx + s2p /n y x y x y
2 ( nx −1 ) s2x + ( n y −1 ) s2y ( 48 ) 282 + ( 24 ) 252

s=
p = =731
(nx +n y −2) (49+25−2)
x− y 55−46
t= 2 = =1.3544
√ s p /nx + s2p /n y √ 731/49+731 /25
Do not reject H 0 at α=0.05 .
( nx −1 ) s2x + ( n y −1 ) s2y ( 48 ) 202 + ( 24 ) 312
b. s2p= = =587
(nx +n y −2) (49+ 25−2)
x− y 55−46
t= 2 = =1.5114
√ s p /nx + s p /n y √ 587/ 49+587/25
2

2 ( nx −1 ) s2x + ( n y −1 ) s2y ( 48 ) 282 + ( 24 ) 342
c. s p= = =908
(nx +n y −2) (49+25−2)
x− y 55−46
t= 2 = =1.2152
√ s p /nx + s p /n y √ 908 /49+908 /25
2

2 ( nx −1 ) s2x + ( n y −1 ) s2y ( 48 ) 17 2+ ( 24 ) 402
d. s p= = =726
(nx +n y −2) (49+25−2)
x− y 55−46
t= 2 = =1.3590
√p x p y
s /n + s2
/n √ 726/ 49+726/25
10.8 Let x – male financial analysts; y – female financial analysts
= 7.334.

Reject at all common levels of alpha
10.9 Let x – British entrepreneurs; y – British corporate managers
= 12.96.
10.10 Let x – students who vote; y – students who do not vote
= -1.0207,
p-value = 2[1-FZ(1.02)] = 2[1-.8461] = .3078
Therefore, reject at levels of alpha in excess of 30.78%
10.11
Let x – auditors used the cash-flow information; y – auditors not using the cash-flow information
H 0 : μx −μ y =0 ; H 1 : μ x −μ y ≠ 0
( nx −1 ) s2x + ( n y −1 ) s2y ( 35 ) ( 23.96 )2 + ( 35 ) ( 28.04 )2
s2p= = =680.16
(nx +n y −2) (36+36−2)
x− y−D0 38.92−54.75−0
t= 2 = =−2.575
√p x p y
s /n + s
2
/n √ 680.16 /36+ 680.16/36
± t 70 , 0.025=−2.2
The critical values are (-1.994, 1.994).
Reject H 0as there is sufficient evidence of a difference in the two population means.
10.12 Let x – prospectuses in which sales forecasts were disclosed; y – prospectuses in which
sales earnings forecasts were not disclosed
Assuming both populations are normal with equal variances:
= 29.592247
= = 1.108
Therefore, do not reject at the 10% alpha level since 1.108 < 1.645 = t(119,.05)

10.13 Let x – Books having more than 100 data files; y – books with at most 100 data files
= 3,632,605, = 1.275
Therefore, do not reject at the 10% alpha level since 1.275 < 1.33 = t(18,.1)
10.14 a.
= .4636, =-
2.65 p-value = .004. Therefore, reject at all common levels of alpha
b.
= .6218,
= -1.36
p-value = .0869. Therefore, reject at .10, but do not reject at the .05 level
c.
= .4582,
= -2.32
p-value = .0102.
Therefore, reject at the .05 level, but do not reject at the .01 level
d.
= .299, = -3.25
p-value = .0006. Therefore, reject at all common levels of alpha

e.
= .4064,
= -1.01
p-value = .1562. Therefore, do not reject at any common level of alpha
10.15 Let x – people in the United States were positive about the future economy; y – people in
Great Britain were positive about the future economy
= .63,
= -2.63
p-value = .0043. Therefore, reject at all common levels of alpha
10.16 Let x – agreed with the statement in country A; y – agreed with the statement in country
B
= .44, = -6.97
10.17
Let x – users were attempting to learn more about their options; y – users of alternative carriers
H 0 : Px −P y =0 ; H 1 : P x −P y ≠ 0; reject H 0 if |z 0.025|>1.96
^ x = 133 =0.554 ; P
P ^ y = 201 =0.773
204 260
^ ^
n P + n P 240 (0.554)+260( 0.773)
^p0= x x y y = =0.6679
nx +n y 240+260
( ^p x − ^
P y) (0.554−0.773)
Z= = =−5.195
√ P^ 0 (1− ^P0)/nx + ^P0 (1− P^ 0)/n y √(0.668)(0.332)/240+(0.668)(0.332)/260
Do reject H 0at the 5% level. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a difference
between the two population proportions.

10.18
Let x = people who had pledged had already been laid off; y = people who had not pledged had
already been laid off
H 0 : Px −P y =0 ; H 1 : P x −P y ≠ 0; reject H 0if |Z| >Z.025 =1.96
n P ^ +n P ^ 108+ 226
^p0= x x y y = =0.3576
nx +n y 254 +680
( ^p x − ^
P y) (0.425−0.332)
Z= = =2.638 ; reject
√ P^ 0 (1− ^P0)/nx + ^P0 (1− P^ 0)/n y √(0.358)(0.642)/254 +(0.358)(0.642)/680
H 0at the 5% level
10.19
Let x – high-quality investment equity options had less than 30% debt;
y – high-risk investment equity options had less than 30% debt
H 0 : Px −P y =0 ; H 1 : P x −P y ≠ 0;
n P ^ +n P ^ 203 +183
^p0= x x y y = =0.585
nx +n y 455+205
( ^p x − ^
P y) (0.446−0.893)
Z= = =−10.785;
√ P^ 0 (1− ^P0)/nx + ^P0 (1− P^ 0)/n y √(0.585)(0.415)/455+( 0.585)(0.415)/205
reject H 0at all common levels of alpha.
10.20 Let x – When asked how satisfied they were; y – When asked how dissatisfied they were
reject if |z.05| > 1.645
= .554
= .926.
Do not reject at the 5% level
10.21
Let x – random sample of 1,000 people in Denmark; y – random sample of 1,600 people in
France
H 0 : Px −P y =0 ; H 1 : P x −P y >0 ;
^ 500 ^ y = 730 =0.456
P x= =0.500; P
1000 1600
^ x+ n y P
nx P ^ y 1000(0.500)+1600 (0.456)
^p0= = =0.4729
nx +n y 1000+1600

( ^p x − ^
P y) (0.500−0.456)
Z= = =2.1862;
√ P^ 0 (1− ^P0)/nx + ^P0 (1− P^ 0)/n y √(0.4729)(0.5271)/1000+(0.4729)(0.5271)/1600
reject H 0at the 10% level.

10.22 a.
F = 125/51 = 2.451. Reject at the 1% level since 2.451 > 2.11  F(44,40,.01)
b.
c.
d.
10.23
Let x – high-expertise group; y – low-expertise group
2 2 2 2
H 0 :σ x =σ y ; H 1 :σ x > σ y ;
1654.008
F= =4.044
409.002
Reject H 0since4.044 >2.42 ≈ F30 ,30 , 0.01. There is sufficient evidence to support the professor's
claim at the 1% level
10.24 Let x – active price competition; y – duopoly and tacit collusion

; reject if F(3,6,.05) > 4.76
F = 114.09/16.08 = 7.095. Reject at the 5% level
10.25
Let x – auditors not using the cash-flow information; y – auditors used the cash-flow information
2 2 2 2 2 2
H 0 :σ x =σ y ; H 1 :σ x ≠ σ y ; s x =1071.2529 , s y =814.5316
2
s x 1071.2529
F= 2 = =1.315
s y 814.5316
Do not reject H 0at the 10% level since1.31<1.82 ≈ F 31 ,31 ,0.025
10.26 Let x – Books having more than 100 data files; y – books with at most 100 data files
;
2 2
F = (2107) /(1681) = 1.57
Therefore, do not reject at the 10% level since 1.57 < 3.18  F(9,9,.05)
10.27 Let x – with a moderator; y – without a moderator
;
2 2
F = (24.4) /(20.2) = 1.46.

Do not reject at the 5% level since 1.46 < 9.28  F(3,3,.05)
10.28 No. The probability of rejecting the null hypothesis given that it is true is 5%.
10.29 Let x – ex-smokers; y – long-term ex-smokers

Assuming population variances are equal,
= = 3.4233
= = 1.974
p-value is between (.025, .010) x 2 = .05 and .02.
Reject at levels in excess of 5%
10.30 Assuming population variances are equal,
a. reject if t.05 > 1.671
= 2.574. Reject at the 5% level

b. Let x – response for business managers ; y – response for college economics
reject if t .05 < -1.645
= = 1.853
= = -4.293.
10.31
Let x – bachelor’s degree holders ; y – master’s degree holders
H 0 : μx −μ y =0 ; H 1 : μ x −μ y ≠ 0 ;reject H 0if |t| > t126,0.05 =1.657
= = 427.5346

= = −0.261.
Do not reject H 0at levels in excess of 5%.

10.32 Let x – four-member groups; y – eight-member groups

Presuming the populations are normally distributed with equal variances, the samples must
be independent random samples:
reject if t(10,.01) < -2.764
= = 327.82
= = -3.31 .
10.33 Let x – consumption of food groups are greater in the metro; y – consumption of
food groups are greater in the non-metro
Presuming the populations are normally distributed with equal variances in all the cases,
the samples must be independent random samples:
Per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables in the metro and non-metro counties
reject if t .05 >1.645
= 1085, = 2023, = 22.2, = 17.1
= 363.30
= = 8.02
Reject at 5% level.
Per capita consumption of snack foods in the metro and non-metro counties
= 1085, = 2023, = 10.2, = 9.1
= 91.06
= = 0.16
Do not reject at 5% level.

Per capita consumption of soft drinks in the metro and non-metro counties
= 1085, = 2023, = 7.7, = 7.4
= 55.90
= = -4.54
Per capita consumption of meat in the metro and non-metro counties
= 1085, = 2023, = 15.8, = 10.5
= 158.40
= = 7.37
Reject at 5% level.
10.34
Let x – Obesity rate in the metro; y – Obesity rate in the non-metro
Assuming the populations are normally distributed with equal variances , in all the cases and
independent random samples:
Percent of obese adults in metro and non-metro counties
reject if t .05 <-1.645

= 1089, = 2051, = 3.63, = 3.58
= 12.95
= = -6.86
Reject at 5% level.

Percent of low-income preschool obesity in metro and non-metro counties

= 1015, = 1676, = 3.49, = 3.85
= 13.81
= = 0.87
10.35
Let x – business faculty; y – economics faculty
Sample sizes greater than 100, use the z-test.
= -2.30, p-value = 1 – FZ(2.3) = 1 - .9893 = .0107

10.36
Let x – knee patients; y – hip patients
Assuming the populations are normally distributed with equal variances,
. Sample sizes less than 100, use the t-test
= = .32675
= = -1.901. p-value is between (.05 and .025) x 2

= .10 and .05. Reject at any alpha of .10 or higher.
10.37
a. reject if z.05 < -1.645
= -1.2. Do not reject at the 5% level

b.
Let x – accounting majors; y – finance majors
reject Ho if |z.025| > 1.96
= .478, = .932
Therefore, do not reject at the 5% level
10.38 Let x – firms with substantial earnings; y – firms without substantial earnings
reject Ho if t(44,.05) < -1.684
= = .00319
= = -5.284.
Reject at any common level of alpha
10.39 Let x – employees who had not completed high school; y – employees who had
completed high school but had not attended college
reject Ho if |z.01| < -2.33
=.211, = -1.19.
Do not reject at the 1% level
10.40
Let x – health insurance firms; y – casualty insurance firms
H 0 : Px −P y =0 ; H 1 : P x −P y ≠ 0;
= .71875,
= 1.934,
p-value = 2[1-FZ(1.93)] = 0.0531.
Reject H 0at levels of alpha in excess of 5.31%.

10.41 Let x – male clients; y – female clients
= .617, = -1.653,
p-value = 1–FZ(1.65)]=.0495
10.42 Let x – Obesity rate in the metro; y – Obesity rate in the non-metro
Assuming the populations are normally distributed with equal variances in all the cases and
Percent of obese adults in metro and non-metro counties of California
reject if t .05 <-1.645

= 37 , = 21 , = 3.83 , = 1.69
= 10.47
= = -0.78
Percent of low-income preschool obesity in metro and non-metro counties of California
= 37, = 20, = 1.98, = 3.03
= 5.72
= = 2.81
Reject at 5% level.

Percent of obese adults in metro and non-metro counties of Michigan
reject if t .05 <-1.645

=26 , = 57 , = 2.11, = 0.94
= 1.98
= = -0.06
Percent of low-income preschool obesity in metro and non-metro counties of Michigan
reject if t .05 <-1.645
= 26, = 56, = 1.61, = 2.85
= 6.38
= = -1.18
Percent of obese adults in metro and non-metro counties of Minnesota
reject if t .05 <-1.645

= 21, = 66 , =1.23, = 0.71
= 0.74
= = -3.27
Reject at 5% level.

Percent of low-income preschool obesity in metro and non-metro counties of Minnesota

reject if t .05 <-1.645
= 21, = 66, = 1.94, = 3.11
= 8.27
= = -1.91
Reject at 5% level.
Percent of obese adults in metro and non-metro counties of Florida
reject if t .05 <-1.645

= 38, = 29, = 3.38, = 3.39
= 11.44
= = -5.46
Reject at 5% level.
Percent of low-income preschool obesity in metro and non-metro counties of Florida
= 38, = 28, = 2.73, = 2.66
= 7.27
= = 0.5

10.43 Let x – students eligible for free lunches in rural area; y – students eligible for free lunches
in urban areaAssuming the populations are normally distributed with equal variances in all the
cases and independent random samples:
= 1089, = 2040, = 16.24, = 16.48
= 268.94
= = 2.45
Reject at 5% level.
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: PCT_FREE_LUNCH, metro

Two-sample T for PCT_FREE_LUNCH
metro N Mean StDev SE Mean

0 2040 38.3 16.7 0.37
1 1089 31.7 14.9 0.45
Difference = mu (0) - mu (1)

Estimate for difference: 6.605
95% upper bound for difference: 7.600
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs <): T-Value = 10.92 P-Value = 1.000 DF = 3127
Both use Pooled StDev = 16.1107
10.44 Let x – used the old procedure; y – used the new procedure
a.
df = n1 + n2 – 2 = 27 + 27 – 2 = 52; t52,.05 = 1.675
At the .05 level of significance, reject Ho and accept the alternative that the mean output
per hectare is significantly greater with the new procedure.
b. 95% acceptance interval:
, , , because F calc is
within the acceptance interval, there is not sufficient evidence against the null
hypothesis that the sample variances are not significantly different from each other.

10.45 Let x – market 1 in western Poland; y – market 2 in southern Austria

a. reject if |z.015| > 2.17
= .3453, = 1.987
Therefore, reject at the 5% level, but do not reject at the 3% level
b. reject if |z.03| > 1.88
= .3453, = 1.987
Therefore, reject at the 3% level
10.46 Let x – students eligible for free lunches in rural area; y – students eligible for free
lunches in urban area
Presuming the populations are normally distributed with equal variances, the samples
must be independent random samples:
Eligibility for free lunches between rural and urban residents of California
= 21, = 37, =12.1, = 12.43
= 151.64
= = -0.64
Eligibility for free lunches between rural and urban residents of Texas
= 176, = 77, = 12.85, = 10.71
= 149.89

= = 3.99
Reject at 5% level.
Eligibility for free lunches between rural and urban residents of Florida
= 29, = 38, = 9.34, = 11.29
= 110.09
= = 3.98
Reject at 5% level.
10.47 a. The box plots of the raw data show similar medians and interquartile ranges for both
brands. However, brand 2 is dominated by three outliers that are skewing the brand 2
data to the right:

The descriptive statistics show the effect of the extreme outliers on brand 2 sales —note
the sizeable standard deviation of brand 2:
Descriptive Statistics: saleb2, saleb4

Variable N Mean Median TrMean StDev SE Mean
saleb2 52 181.2 127.0 155.7 154.9 21.5
saleb4 52 140.29 125.50 136.80 60.84 8.44
Variable Minimum Maximum Q1 Q3

saleb2 59.0 971.0 94.8 203.3
saleb4 55.00 305.00 101.25 182.75
The matched pairs t-test on the original data shows a significant difference between the weekly
sales with brand 2 found to be significantly larger than brand 4 at the .05 level:
Paired T-Test and CI: saleb2, saleb4

Paired T for saleb2 - saleb4
Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean
saleb2 52 181.2 154.9 21.5
saleb4 52 140.3 60.8 8.4
Difference 52 40.9 169.5 23.5
95% lower bound for mean difference: 1.5
T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs > 0): T-Value = 1.74 P-Value = 0.044
b. However, with only the largest outlier removed from the data of brand 2, the difference
between the two brands becomes insignificant at the .05 level:
Paired T-Test and CI: saleb2_1, saleb4 (with outlier removed)

Paired T for saleb2_1 - saleb4
saleb2_1 51 165.7 108.5 15.2
saleb4 51 140.8 61.3 8.6
Difference 51 24.9 125.7 17.6
T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs > 0): T-Value = 1.42 P-Value = 0.081
10.48 Let x – Sales for Ole ice cream; y – sales for Carl’s ice cream
a.
Results for: Ole.MTW
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Olesales, Carlsale

Two-sample T for Olesales vs Carlsale
Olesales 156 3791 5364 429
Carlsale 156 2412 4249 340
Difference = mu Olesales - mu Carlsale

Estimate for difference: 1379
95% lower bound for difference: 475
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs >): T-Value = 2.52 P-Value = 0.006 DF = 310
Both use Pooled StDev = 4839
Reject H0 at the .01 level of significance.

b.
Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Oleprice, Carlpric
Two-sample T for Oleprice vs Carlpric
Oleprice 156 0.819 0.139 0.011
Carlpric 156 0.819 0.120 0.0096
Difference = mu Oleprice - mu Carlpric

Estimate for difference: -0.0007
95% CI for difference: (-0.0297, 0.0283)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.05 P-Value = 0.962 DF =
310
Both use Pooled StDev = 0.130
Do not reject H0 at any common level of significance. Note that the 95% confidence
interval contains 0, therefore, no evidence of a difference.
10.49 The equation for an acceptance interval is shown next:
μ± z α /2 σ x̄
Since the package weights are not independent ( ρ=0 . 40 ), the variance of the sample
means is given by the following equation:
2 σ 21 σ 22 σ1 σ2
σ x̄ = + +2 ρ
n1 n 2 √ n1 √n 2
Calculate the variance of the sample means using and

Also, use σ 1=0 . 2 and
0. 04 0 . 06 0. 2 0. 245
σ 2x̄ = + +2(0 . 40) ⋅ =0 . 034798
4 4 √4 √4
Thus, the standard deviation of the sample means is
For a 99% acceptance interval, so
The 99% acceptance interval is or (15.52, 16.48). The acceptance

interval can be used for quality control monitoring of the process. The interval is plotted
over time and provides limits for the sample mean

10.50 Let x – American trade magazine advertisements; y – British trade magazine

advertisements
reject if z <−z α /2 =−1. 96 or z > z α /2 =1. 96
Let and Then, and
Do not reject H 0at the 5% level. Conclude that there is a not a difference in the
proportion of humorous ads in British versus American trade magazines.
10.51 Let x – HEI on the first day; y – HEI on the second day
Presuming the populations are normally distributed with equal variances, the samples must be
HEI of individuals measured on two different days
= 4130 , = 4460, = 14.56, = 14.2
= 206.58
= = 7.61
Reject at 5% level.
10.52 Let x – diet of immigrants; y – diet of non-immigrants

Difference in the diet of immigrants and natives in the first interview
= 885 , = 3575, = 13.98, = 13.95
= 194.69
= = 12.61

Reject at 5% level.

Difference in the diet of immigrants and natives in the second interview

= 801 , = 3329, = 14.11, = 14.33
= 204.2
= = 12.58
Reject at 5% level.
Hence the immigrants have strong interest for good diet in both the first and second interview
10.53 Let x – diet of physically active people; y – diet of people who are not physically active
Difference in the diet of individuals who are physically active and those who are not in the first
interview
= 2277 , = 2183, = 14.44, = 13.93
= 201.42
= = 2.16
Reject at 5% level.
Difference in the diet of individuals who are physically active and those who are not in the
second interview
= 2114 , = 2016, = 14.77, = 14.27
= 211.06
= = 4.33
Reject at 5% level.

Hence the individuals who are physically active have strong interest for quality diet in both the
first and second interview
10.54 Let x – diet of single people; y – diet of married people

Difference in the diet of individuals who are single and those who are married in the first
interview
= 1785 , = 2673, = 14.04, = 14.26
= 200.87
= = -4.26
Difference in the diet of individuals who are single and those who are married in the second
interview
= 1597 , = 2531, = 14.82, = 14.33
= 210.84
= = -4.43
We cannot conclude about the quality of the diet of individuals who are single and those who
are married in either of the interviews.
10.55 Let x – diet of men; y – diet of women

Difference in the quality of diet between men and women in the first interview
= 2321 , = 2139, = 14.4, = 13.84

= 199.72
= = 6.54
Reject at 5% level.
Difference in the quality of diet between men and women in the second interview
= 2176 , = 1954, = 14.49, = 14.55
= 210.79
= = 6.31
Reject at 5% level.
Hence there is difference in the quality of diet between men and women in both the interviews.
10.56 Let x – daily food cost for women; y – daily food cost for men
Difference in the daily food cost between men and women in the first interview
reject if t .05 < -1.645
= 2321 , = 2139, = 2.57, = 3.42
= 9.05
= = -13.16
Reject at 5% level.
Difference in the daily food cost between men and women in the second interview
reject if t .05 < -1.645
= 2176 , = 1954, = 2.49, = 3.22

= 8.17
= = -12.26
Reject at 5% level.
Hence there is difference in the daily food cost quality of diet between men and women in both
the interviews.
10.57 Let x – nutrition level of people receiving food stamps; y – nutrition level of people who
are not receiving food stamps
Difference in the quality of diet between people who receive food stamps and those who don’t
receive food stamps in the first interview.
= 574 , = 3823, = 13.65, = 14.22
= 200.06
= = -5.64
Difference in the quality of diet between people who receive food stamps and those who don’t
receive food stamps in the second interview.
= 517, =3560, = 13.63, = 14.53
= 207.88
= = -8.29
Hence there is no difference in the quality of diet between people who receive food stamps and
those who don’t receive food stamps in either the first or second interview.

Difference in the daily cost between people who receive food stamps and those who don’t
receive food stamps in the first interview.
= 574 , = 3823, = 3.11, = 3.05
= 9.37
= = -4.41
Difference in the daily cost between people who receive food stamps and those who don’t
receive food stamps in the second interview.
= 517, =3560, = 2.7, = 2.94
= 8.46
= = -3.75
Hence there is no difference in the daily cost between people who receive food stamps and those
who don’t receive food stamps in either the first or second interview.
10.58
We wanted to test whether the immigrant population have a lower percentage of people that are
overweight compared to the remainder of the population in the first interview.
Let x – immigrant population
y- non-immigrant population
Two Proportions - 1 = Immigrant 2 = non-immigrant Day 1

Sample X N Sample p
1 404 881 0.458570
2 1993 3571 0.558107
Difference = p (1) - p (2)


95% upper bound for difference: -0.0687260
Test for difference = 0 (vs < 0): Z = -5.31 P-Value = 0.000
Reject at all levels of alpha.

We wanted to test whether the immigrant population have a lower percentage of people that are
overweight compared to the remainder of the population in the second interview.
Let x – immigrant population
y- non-immigrant population
Two Proportions - 1 = Immigrant 2 = non-immigrant Day 2

Sample X N Sample p
1 375 797 0.470514
2 1891 3325 0.568722
Difference = p (1) - p (2)

95% upper bound for difference: -0.0658764
Test for difference = 0 (vs < 0): Z = -5.00 P-Value = 0.000
Reject at all levels of alpha.

Hence the percentage of overweight people is higher for immigrant than for non-immigrant
populations in both the first and second interviews.

Nsbe9ege Ism ch10

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

Nsbe9ege Ism ch10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 10:

Hypothesis Testing: Additional Topics

= - 2.500, p-value = .990. Do not reject at alpha of .05

N Mean StDev SE Mean

= -1.67, p-value = 0.946. Do not reject at alpha of .05

N Mean StDev SE Mean

= -3.33, p-value = 0.999. Do not reject at alpha of .05

N Mean StDev SE Mean

= -1.25, p-value = 0.888. Do not reject at alpha of .05

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Paired T-Test and CI

N Mean StDev SE Mean

= 1.2, p-value = 0.879

N Mean StDev SE Mean

b. The sample means are 59 and 50,

= 1.8, p-value = 0.958. Do not reject at alpha of .05

Paired T-Test and CI

N Mean StDev SE Mean

c. The sample means are 56 and 48,

= 1.60, p-value = .939. Do not reject at alpha of .05

Paired T-Test and CI

N Mean StDev SE Mean

d. The sample means are 54 and 50,

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

= 0.8, p-value = .784. Do not reject at alpha of .05

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Paired T-Test and CI

Paired T-Test and CI: Sale 1 Price, Sale 2 Price

N Mean StDev SE Mean

95% lower bound for mean difference: -22944

Since, p-value is equal to 1.000, we do not reject the null hypothesis.

= -31.44, p-value = 1.00. Do not reject at any levels of alpha.

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

N Mean StDev SE Mean

Since, p-value is equal to 1.000, we do not reject the null hypothesis.

10.6 Let x – Process 1; y – Process 2

Do not reject at alpha of .05.

Reject at alpha of .05.

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Do not reject at alpha of .05.

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Do not reject at alpha of .05.

2 ( nx −1 ) s2x + ( n y −1 ) s2y ( 48 ) 282 + ( 24 ) 252

Do not reject H 0 at α=0.05 .

Do not reject H 0 at α=0.05 .

10.8 Let x – male financial analysts; y – female financial analysts

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Reject at all common levels of alpha

10.9 Let x – British entrepreneurs; y – British corporate managers

10.10 Let x – students who vote; y – students who do not vote

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

10.24 Let x – active price competition; y – duopoly and tacit collusion

Copyright © 2020 Pearson Education Ltd.

Do not reject at the 5% level since 1.46 < 9.28  F(3,3,.05)

10.29 Let x – ex-smokers; y – long-term ex-smokers

10.30 Assuming population variances are equal,

a. reject if t.05 > 1.671

= 2.574. Reject at the 5% level