1 of 4

Fundamental of Statistics
and Analysis
ASSISSGNMENT-II
NAME : D.VINODH
COURSE : BCA-DS
ROLL NO : 10

1.In a sample of 500 people in Tamilnadu 280 are tea drinkers and the rest are coffee
drinkers.
Can we assume that both are coffee and tea equally popular in this state at 1% of
Significance.

To determine whether both tea and coffee are equally popular in Tamil Nadu at a significance level of 1%, we can perform a
hypothesis test using the chi-square test for independence. The null hypothesis 𝐻0H0 would be that the proportions of tea
drinkers and coffee drinkers are equal, and the alternative hypothesis 𝐻1H1 would be that they are not equal.
Given:
• Sample size (𝑛n): 500
• Number of tea drinkers (𝑋1X1): 280
• Number of coffee drinkers (𝑋2X2): 500 - 280 = 220
Hypotheses:
• Null Hypothesis (𝐻0H0): The proportions of tea drinkers and coffee drinkers are equal in Tamil Nadu.
• 𝑃tea=𝑃coffeePtea=Pcoffee
• Alternative Hypothesis (𝐻1H1): The proportions of tea drinkers and coffee drinkers are not equal in Tamil Nadu.
• 𝑃tea≠𝑃coffeePtea =Pcoffee
Significance Level:
• 𝛼=0.01α=0.01
Calculation Steps:
1. Calculate the expected frequencies under the assumption that tea and coffee are equally popular.
• Expected frequency for tea drinkers: 𝐸tea=𝑛2=5002=250Etea=2n=2500=250
• Expected frequency for coffee drinkers: 𝐸coffee=𝑛2=5002=250Ecoffee=2n=2500=250
2. Compute the chi-square test statistic:
• 𝜒2=(𝑂tea−𝐸tea)2𝐸tea+(𝑂coffee−𝐸coffee)2𝐸coffeeχ2=Etea(Otea−Etea)2+Ecoffee(Ocoffee−Ecoffee)2
• 𝑂teaOtea and 𝑂coffeeOcoffee are the observed frequencies for tea and coffee drinkers, respectively.
3. Compare the computed chi-square value with the critical chi-square value from the chi-square distribution table
with (2−1)×(2−1)=1(2−1)×(2−1)=1 degree of freedom at 𝛼=0.01α=0.01.
4. If the computed chi-square value exceeds the critical chi-square value, reject the null hypothesis. Otherwise, fail to
reject the null hypothesis.
Computation:
𝜒2=(280−250)2250+(220−250)2250χ2=250(280−250)2+250(220−250)2
𝜒2=(30)2250+(−30)2250χ2=250(30)2+250(−30)2
 𝜒2=900250+900250χ2=250900+250900
𝜒2=3.6+3.6χ2=3.6+3.6
𝜒2=7.2χ2=7.2
Conclusion:
The critical chi-square value for 11 degree of freedom at 𝛼=0.01α=0.01 is approximately 6.6356.635 (from
the chi-square distribution table). Since 7.2>6.6357.2>6.635, we reject the null hypothesis.
Interpretation:
At a significance level of 0.010.01, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportions of tea drinkers
and coffee drinkers in Tamil Nadu are not equal. Therefore, we cannot assume that both tea and coffee
are equally popular in the state.

2. A manufacturer claimed that at least 98% of the steel pipes which he supplied to a
factory
confirm to specifications. An examinations of a Sample of 500 pieces of pipes revealed that
30 were defective.. Test his claim at a significance level of 5%.
Given:
• Sample size (𝑛n): 500
• Number of defective pipes (𝑋X): 30
• Claimed proportion of non-defective pipes (𝑝0p0): 98% = 0.98
• Significance level (𝛼α): 5%
Hypotheses:
• Null Hypothesis (𝐻0H0): The proportion of non-defective pipes is at least 98%.
• 𝑝≥0.98p≥0.98
• Alternative Hypothesis (𝐻1H1): The proportion of non-defective pipes is less than 98%.
• 𝑝<0.98p<0.98
Test Statistic:
Since the sample size is large (𝑛=500n=500) and the expected number of defective pipes (𝑛×𝑝0=500×0.98=490n×p0
=500×0.98=490) and non-defective pipes (𝑛×(1−𝑝0)=500×(1−0.98)=10n×(1−p0)=500×(1−0.98)=10) are both greater than
5, we can use the z-test for proportions.
𝑍=𝑝^−𝑝0𝑝0×(1−𝑝0)𝑛Z=np0×(1−p0)p^−p0
Where:
• 𝑝^p^ is the sample proportion of defective pipes.
• 𝑝0p0 is the claimed proportion of non-defective pipes.
• 𝑛n is the sample size.
Computation:
𝑝^=𝑋𝑛=30500=0.06p^=nX=50030=0.06
𝑍=0.06−0.980.98×(1−0.98)500Z=5000.98×(1−0.98)0.06−0.98
𝑍=−0.920.98×0.02500Z=5000.98×0.02−0.92
𝑍=−0.920.0196500Z=5000.0196−0.92
𝑍≈−0.920.0000392Z≈0.0000392−0.92
𝑍≈−0.920.00626Z≈0.00626−0.92
𝑍≈−147.22Z≈−147.22
Conclusion:
The critical z-value for a one-tailed test at a significance level of 5% is approximately -1.645 (from the standard normal
distribution table). Since −147.22<−1.645−147.22<−1.645, we reject the null hypothesis.
Interpretation:
At a significance level of 5%, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportion of non-defective pipes is less than
98%. Therefore, the manufacturer's claim is rejected, indicating that the proportion of defective pipes is significantly higher
than 2%.
3. Random samples of 400 men and 600 women where asked whether they would like to have a
flyover near their residence. 200 men and 325 women were in favour of the proposal. Test the
hypothesis that proportions of men and women in favour of the proposal are same at 5%
level.
Given:
• Sample size of men (𝑛1n1): 400
• Sample size of women (𝑛2n2): 600
• Number of men in favor (𝑋1X1): 200
• Number of women in favor (𝑋2X2): 325
• Significance level (𝛼α): 5%
Hypotheses:
• Null Hypothesis (𝐻0H0): The proportions of men and women in favor of the proposal are the same.
• 𝑝1=𝑝2p1=p2
• Alternative Hypothesis (𝐻1H1): The proportions of men and women in favor of the proposal are different.
• 𝑝1≠𝑝2p1 =p2
Test Statistic:
We can use the z-test for the difference between two proportions.
𝑍=(𝑝^1−𝑝^2)−(𝑝1−𝑝2)𝑝^(1−𝑝^)(1𝑛1+1𝑛2)Z=p^(1−p^)(n11+n21)(p^1−p^2)−(p1−p2)
Where:
• 𝑝^1p^1 and 𝑝^2p^2 are the sample proportions of men and women in favor, respectively.
• 𝑝1p1 and 𝑝2p2 are the population proportions of men and women in favor, respectively (under the null hypothesis).
• 𝑝^p^ is the pooled sample proportion.
• 𝑛1n1 and 𝑛2n2 are the sample sizes of men and women, respectively.
Computation:
𝑝^1=𝑋1𝑛1=200400=0.5p^1=n1X1=400200=0.5 𝑝^2=𝑋2𝑛2=325600≈0.5417p^2=n2X2=600325≈0.5417
𝑝^=𝑋1+𝑋2𝑛1+𝑛2=200+325400+600=5251000=0.525p^=n1+n2X1+X2=400+600200+325=1000525=0.525
𝑍=(0.5−0.5417)−00.525(1−0.525)(1400+1600)Z=0.525(1−0.525)(4001+6001)(0.5−0.5417)−0
𝑍=−0.04170.525(0.475)(1400+1600)Z=0.525(0.475)(4001+6001)−0.0417
𝑍≈−0.04170.2491875×(0.0025+0.00166667)Z≈0.2491875×(0.0025+0.00166667)−0.0417
𝑍≈−0.04170.2491875×0.00416667Z≈0.2491875×0.00416667−0.0417
𝑍≈−0.04170.001037825Z≈0.001037825−0.0417
𝑍≈−0.04170.0321977Z≈0.0321977−0.0417
𝑍≈−1.294Z≈−1.294
Conclusion:
The critical z-value for a two-tailed test at a significance level of 5% is approximately ±1.96 (from the standard normal
distribution table). Since −1.96<−1.294<1.96−1.96<−1.294<1.96, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Interpretation:
At a significance level of 5%, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the proportions of men and women in favor of
the proposal are different. Therefore, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the proportions are the same.

4. A cigarette manufacturing firm claims that its brand A line of cigarettes outsells its
brand by
8%. If it is found that 42 out of a sample of 200 smokers prefer brand A and 18% out of
another 100 smokers prefer banned B. Test whether the 8% difference is a valid claim.

To test whether the claimed 8% difference in sales between brand A and brand B cigarettes is valid, we can perform a
hypothesis test for the difference between two proportions. We'll compare the sample proportions of smokers preferring
brand A and brand B and test whether the difference is significantly different from 8%.
Given:
• Sample size of smokers preferring brand A (𝑛1n1): 200
• Sample size of smokers preferring brand B (𝑛2n2): 100
 • Number of smokers preferring brand A (𝑋1X1): 42
• Number of smokers preferring brand B (𝑋2X2): 18
• Claimed difference in sales: 8%
• Significance level (𝛼α): Assumed to be 5%
Hypotheses:
• Null Hypothesis (𝐻0H0): The actual difference in sales between brand A and brand B cigarettes is 8%.
• 𝑝1−𝑝2=0.08p1−p2=0.08
• Alternative Hypothesis (𝐻1H1): The actual difference in sales between brand A and brand B cigarettes is not 8%.
• 𝑝1−𝑝2≠0.08p1−p2 =0.08
Test Statistic:
We can use the z-test for the difference between two proportions.
𝑍=(𝑝^1−𝑝^2)−0.08𝑝^(1−𝑝^)(1𝑛1+1𝑛2)Z=p^(1−p^)(n11+n21)(p^1−p^2)−0.08
Where:
• 𝑝^1p^1 and 𝑝^2p^2 are the sample proportions of smokers preferring brand A and brand B, respectively.
• 𝑝1−𝑝2p1−p2 is the claimed difference in sales.
• 𝑝^p^ is the pooled sample proportion.
• 𝑛1n1 and 𝑛2n2 are the sample sizes of smokers preferring brand A and brand B, respectively.
Computation:
𝑝^1=𝑋1𝑛1=42200=0.21p^1=n1X1=20042=0.21 𝑝^2=𝑋2𝑛2=18100=0.18p^2=n2X2=10018=0.18
𝑝^=𝑋1+𝑋2𝑛1+𝑛2=42+18200+100=60300=0.2p^=n1+n2X1+X2=200+10042+18=30060=0.2
𝑍=(0.21−0.18)−0.080.2(1−0.2)(1200+1100)Z=0.2(1−0.2)(2001+1001)(0.21−0.18)−0.08
𝑍=(0.03)−0.080.2(0.8)(1200+1100)Z=0.2(0.8)(2001+1001)(0.03)−0.08
𝑍=−0.050.16×(0.015+0.03)Z=0.16×(0.015+0.03)−0.05
𝑍=−0.050.16×0.045Z=0.16×0.045−0.05
𝑍=−0.050.0072Z=0.0072−0.05
𝑍≈−0.050.0849Z≈0.0849−0.05
𝑍≈−0.589Z≈−0.589
Conclusion:
The critical z-value for a two-tailed test at a significance level of 5% is approximately ±1.96 (from the standard normal
distribution table). Since −1.96<−0.589<1.96−1.96<−0.589<1.96, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Interpretation:
At a significance level of 5%, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the actual difference in sales between brand A
and brand B cigarettes is different from 8%. Therefore, we cannot reject the claim that the difference is 8%.

5.A sample of 64 students have a mean weight of 70 kgs. Can this be regarded as a sample
from
a population with mean weight 65 kgs and standard deviation 25 kg.
Given:
• Sample size (𝑛n): 64
• Sample mean (𝑥ˉxˉ): 70 kg
• Population mean (𝜇μ): 65 kg
• Population standard deviation (𝜎σ): 25 kg
Hypotheses:
• Null Hypothesis (𝐻0H0): The sample mean is equal to the population mean.
• 𝑥ˉ=𝜇xˉ=μ
• Alternative Hypothesis (𝐻1H1): The sample mean is not equal to the population mean.
• 𝑥ˉ≠𝜇xˉ =μ
Test Statistic:
We can use the one-sample z-test formula:
𝑍=𝑥ˉ−𝜇𝜎𝑛Z=nσxˉ−μ
Where:
 • 𝑥ˉxˉ is the sample mean
• 𝜇μ is the population mean
• 𝜎σ is the population standard deviation
• 𝑛n is the sample size
Computation:
𝑍=70−652564Z=642570−65 𝑍=70−65258Z=82570−65 𝑍=70−653.125Z=3.12570−65 𝑍≈53.125Z≈3.1255 𝑍≈1.6Z≈1.6
Conclusion:
The critical z-value for a two-tailed test at a significance level of 5% is approximately ±1.96 (from the standard normal
distribution table). Since −1.96<1.6<1.96−1.96<1.6<1.96, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
Interpretation:
At a significance level of 5%, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that the sample mean weight of 70 kg is
significantly different from the population mean weight of 65 kg. Therefore, we can regard the sample as potentially being
from a population with a mean weight of 65 kg.