1.

) The administrators observed a notable GPA difference between freshmen who

took the pilot "freshman experience" course and those who didn't.

1. Self-selection bias:

● Students who enrolled in the optional course might have been more motivated or
academically inclined from the beginning, leading to higher GPAs regardless of
the course.
● A randomized controlled trial with random assignment to the course or control
group would eliminate this bias.

2. Small sample size:

● The pilot study involved a limited number of participants (85 in the course and
415 outside). This may exaggerate the GPA difference.
● A larger sample size would provide more reliable and generalizable results,
potentially reducing the observed difference.

3. Uncontrolled variables:

● External factors like socioeconomic background, prior education, and

extracurricular commitments could contribute to the GPA difference.
● Controlling for these variables through statistical methods or using a matched
control group would provide a clearer understanding of the course's impact.

4. Yearly assessment limitation:

 ● GPA at the end of the freshman year may not capture long-term effects or
drawbacks.
● A more holistic assessment, including multiple academic years and various
performance indicators, would provide a comprehensive view.

5. Confounding factors:

● Unaccounted-for factors like changes in curriculum, teaching methods, or

campus-wide initiatives during the study period could influence the GPA
difference.
● Examining other concurrent changes or interventions would help single the
course's effects.

In conclusion, while a positive correlation between the course and higher GPAs was
observed, the study's design and limitations raise questions about the difference solely
to the course. A more rigorous and controlled study is necessary to draw reliable
conclusions about the "freshman experience" course.

2.) a.) Cluster Random Sample:

● The forest is divided into 9-acre plots (clusters).
● Randomly select 100 of these plots.
● Inspect all Ash trees within the selected plots.

b.) Multi-stage Sampling:

● First stage: Simple Random Sample of 100 school districts selected from the list
of all school districts in the United States.
● Second stage: Two schools are randomly selected from each of the 100 districts.
● Third stage: Random samples of 10 students from each grade (9th, 10th, 11th,
and 12th) are selected from each of the two schools.
● The final estimate is based on interviewing the selected students.
c.) Stratified Random Sample:

● The strata are the five levels of minor league professional baseball: Rookie,
Low-A, High-A, Double-A, and Triple-A.
● Randomly select 100 players from each of these five strata.
● Survey the selected players to estimate the proportion of players across all
leagues.

d.) Systematic Random Sample:

● Every fifth customer paying for groceries is selected.

● These selected customers are then asked a randomly selected question related
to customer service.

e.) Simple Random Sample:

● A random sample of 50 seniors is selected.

● These selected seniors are interviewed to determine their preference for either a
"senior skip day" or a "senior off-campus lunch week."

3.) a.) Evaluation of Strategies:

(1) Random Assignment without Replacement:

● Problem: If one fertilizer type is consistently drawn early in the process, there's a
risk of running out of that fertilizer before all plots are assigned.
● Potential Confounding Factor: Unequal distribution of fertilizers among plots may
impact the results due to variability in soil conditions or other factors.

(2) Random Assignment with Replacement:

● Problem: This method may result in the same fertilizer being assigned to a plot
more than once, leading to biased results.
● Lack of Randomization: The replacement method lacks the principle of
randomization, as the same fertilizer can be assigned to multiple plots
consecutively.

(3) Stratified Random Assignment:

 ● Problem: While this method attempts to control for elevation, it introduces
potential biases if elevation correlates with other uncontrolled factors influencing
tomato growth.
● Lack of Complete Randomization: The randomization within each brand and
elevation might not be sufficient to ensure unbiased comparisons.

b.) Optimal Experiment Design:

Randomized Complete Block Design:

​ Random Assignment: Place 27 equally-sized slips of paper in a box – 9 labeled

✔️
with A, 9 with B, and 9 with C. Draw one slip of paper for each plot without
replacement. [Randomization ]
​ Blocking: Divide the garden into three blocks along the slope: high elevation,
middle elevation, and low elevation. Each block will receive one type of fertilizer.
This ensures that potential elevation-related factors are controlled for.
​ Randomization within Blocks: Randomly assign the bags of each fertilizer type
within its corresponding block. This helps control for any variability within each
elevation level.
​ Other Controls: Keep all other factors constant across plots – water the same
amount, use the same number of seeds, etc.
​ Data Collection: After a sufficient period, measure the amount of tomatoes (total
weight) produced in each plot.
​ Comparison: Compare the average amount (total weight) of tomatoes produced
for each fertilizer brand. This design helps control for potential confounding
factors and ensures a more reliable comparison of the effectiveness of the three
fertilizers.

4.) i.) Choosing the Best Blocking Variable:

● The goal of blocking is to reduce variability within blocks and enhance the
precision of treatment comparisons. In this case, considering the boxplots, it
seems that "angina severity by age" is a more consistent predictor of angina
severity than "angina severity by type of job."
● A good block variable should show minimal variability within each block and
significant variability between blocks. Age appears to exhibit this characteristic
more prominently than the type of job-based on the provided boxplots.
● Therefore, blocking by age (young, middle-aged, old) would be a better choice as
it is expected to result in more homogeneous groups in terms of angina severity.
ii.) Randomized Block Design:

​ Blocking Variable: Block by age.

​ Treatment Levels: There are three levels of angina medication: low, medium, and
high.
​ Subject Assignment:
● Randomly assign 100 subjects from each age group to each level of the
treatment. This ensures the representation of each age group at each
treatment level.
● Each subject receives the assigned treatment level based on
randomization.
​ Randomization and Blinding:
● Randomization: Randomly allocate subjects to treatment levels within
each block (age group) to control for potential confounding factors.
● Blinding: Implement a double-blind design where both the researchers and
the patients are unaware of the specific treatment received. This helps
minimize bias and ensures the integrity of the experimental process.
​ Data Collection: Record angina severity for each subject after treatment.
​ Statistical Analysis: Analyze the data using a statistical model that includes the
effects of both age and treatment to determine the most effective angina
medication, while accounting for potential confounding by age.

By employing a randomized block design, researchers can control for the effects of
age, reducing variability within blocks and allowing for a better assessment of the
effectiveness of the angina medications across different age groups.
Randomization and blinding further strengthen the experimental design.

1.) Option 4 is the best choice for most efficiently estimating the proportion of high

school students with a driver's license, providing a well-rounded and unbiased

representation of the entire student population.

Among the presented options, Option 4, which involves selecting a simple random
sample of 100 students, stands out as the most efficient method for gauging the
proportion of high school students possessing a driver's license. This approach
offers several compelling advantages:
1. Representativeness: By employing a simple random sample, each student within
the high school has an equal likelihood of being selected. This unbiased
approach ensures a representative cross-section of the entire student population.
2. Efficiency: Option 4 maximizes the utilization of the available sample size (100
students) for estimation purposes. By leveraging the entire sample, it extracts the
utmost information within the budgetary constraints.
3. Inclusive: The inclusion of students from all grades and both genders in the
random sample enhances the generalizability of the results to the broader high
school population. This inclusivity increases the applicability of the findings to the
entire student body.
4. Simplicity: Practicality is important in survey design. A simple random sample is
straightforward to implement and analyze, making it a good choice within the
budget.

In conclusion, Option 4 provides the most effective means of estimating the

proportion of high school students with a driver's license. Its unbiased
representation, efficiency, inclusivity, and simplicity make it the better choice.