Ariel Alvarez EM 561 Probability and Statistics TEST 2 Problem 1 a) One Sample Z

The assumed standard deviation = 0.0412 N 75 Mean 2.01800 SE Mean 0.00476 95% CI (2.00868, 2.02732)

b) Using the confidence interval it can be concluded that the mean length of its nails is NOT 2.00 inches.

c) Test and CI for one Standard Deviation: CI

Method Null Hypothesis Sigma = 0.047 Alternative hypothesis Sigma = < 0.047 The Standard Method is only for the normal distribution. The adjusted Method is for any continuous distribution. Statistics N 75 StDev 0.0412 Variance 0.00170

99% One-sided Confidence Intervals Method Standard Test Method Standard H0: 202 H1: 2<02 Reject H0 when X02<X21-,n-1 56.86<X2.99,74 if X2.99,74 = 48.68 56.86>48.68 I accept H0, so its not believable that the standard deviation of nails length is less than 0.047 inches. d) NO Chi-Square Upper Bound for StDev Upper Bound for Variance 0.00258

0.0508

56.86

DF 74

P-value 0.070

Problem 2 a) Estadsticas descriptivas: C1

Variable C1

N 16

Mean 7.9750

SE Mean 0.0289

Desv.Est. 0.1156

Mediana 7.9700

Test and CI for one Standard Deviation: CI

Method The Standard Method is only for the normal distribution. The adjusted Method is for any continuous distribution. Statistics N 16 St.Dev 0.116 Variance 0.0134

90% One-sided Confidence Intervals Method Standard Upper Bound for StDev Upper Bound for Variance 0.0235

0.153

0.153
--------------------------(0.15) ------------------------------- (0.153) The Cardinal Coffee Company conclude the standard deviation of the amount of coffee in its cans is NOT less than 0.15 ounce. b) NO

c) H0: 0
H0: >0

One-Sample T
Test of mu = 7.95 vs. > 7.95 Variable C1 N 16 Mean 7.9750 St.Dev. 0.1156 SE Mean 0.0289 95% Lower Bound 7.9243 T P

0.86

0.200

0.200>0.05 so I accept H0 Its not believable that the mean amount of coffee in Cardinale Coffee Company cans is at least 7.95. d) NO

Problem 3 Intervals # of observations [25.0,30.0) 30 [30.0,34.0) 28 [34.0,39.0) 38 [39.0,46.0) 30 [46.0,50.0) 22 [50.0,60.0) 52 Expected # obs 28.5714 22.8571 28.5714 40 22.8571 57.1429 7.33505057 Critical value = X20.05, 5 = 11.07 7.3351<11.07, so we accept H0 A U(25,60) distribution is a good fit to this data. b) YES X02 0.0714315 1.15716431 3.11145054 2.5 0.0321397 0.46286451

Problem 4 a) A straight line would be a good fit to this data.

Grfica de dispersin de Strength (in MPa) vs. Cavity Depth (in mm)
30

25

Strength (in MPa)

20

15

10

10

20

30 40 Cavity Depth (in mm)

50

60

70

b) Strength (in MPa) vs. Cavity Depth (in mm)

The regression equation is Strength (in MPa) = 27.2 - 0.298 Cavity Depth (in mm) Predictor Constant Cavity Depth (in mm) S = 2.86403 Coef 27.183 -0.29756 SE Coef 1.651 0.04116 T 16.46 -7.23 P 0.000 0.000

R-Sq = 76.6%

R-Sq(adj) = 75.1%

Analysis of Variance Source Regression Residual error Total DF 1 16 17 SS 428.62 131.24 559.86 MS 428.62 8.20 F 52.25 P 0.000

With R-Sq = 76.6%, a simple linear regression is a good fit. c) Yes, Cavity Depth does have a significant effect on Tooth strength. We know this because If p< we reject H0 0.00<0.05 so we reject H0. Given that we can conclude that Cavity Depth does have a significant effect on Tooth strength. We use pvalue to this answer. D) 27.2 (0.298*42) = 14.684