Question 1:

Let X denote the continuous random variable describing the Zinc content of each tablet. We know
the population mean (5 mg), the population standard deviation (0.1 mg), and that X is normally
distributed. We also assume the population is sufficiently large to not require a finite population
correction factor. Therefore, we can use the standard normal distribution to find the probability of a
a tablet to contain less than 4.95mg Zinc:
𝑋 − 5.0 4.95 − 5.0
𝑃(𝑋 < 4.95) = 𝑃 ( < ) = 𝑃(𝑍 < −0.5) ≈ 30.58
0.1 0.1
There is a probability of approximately 30.58% that a random tablet contains less than 4.95mg of
Zinc

Marked by German Puga (german.puga@adelaide.edu.au)

Feedback

Points may have been discounted due to the following reasons:

- Not stating that normal distribution is given.

- Not explaining that we can use the standard normal distribution.
- Not stating that population mean and population standard deviation are known.
- Not showing transformation into standard normal.
- Not showing enough workings.
- Incorrect signs. For example “>” instead of “<” or viceversa.
- Errors in notation or probabilities.
- Mentioning that 𝑋 or the probability refers to the mean of a sample instead of a random
tablet.

See also “Other feedback for questions 1 to 3” below.

Question 2:

Since the question asks about the mean zinc content of a sample of tablets, the appropriate
distribution is the sampling distribution of sample means. Since X is normally distributed, we know
that 𝑋̅ is normally distributed as well with the same mean (5.0mg) and a standard deviation that is
the standard deviation of the underlying population divided by the square root of the sample size
(0.1/√10 mg). The rest of the calculation then follows the same path as for Q1 while using the
sampling distribution 𝑋̅ :

𝑋̅ − 5.0 5.06 − 5.0

𝑃(𝑋̅ > 5.06) = 𝑃 ( > ) = 𝑃(𝑍 > 1.897) = 1 − 𝑃(𝑍 < 1.897) ≈ 0.029
0.1⁄ 0.1⁄
√10 √10
There is about a 3% chance that the mean Zinc content of the sample tablets is higher than 5.06

Marked by German Puga (german.puga@adelaide.edu.au)

Feedback

Points may have been discounted due to the following reasons:

- Talking about “a tablet” instead of “a sample of tablets”.

- A very common error in notation was to use 𝑋 instead of 𝑋̅.
 - Not justifying that we have to use a sampling distribution.
- Not stating that population mean and population standard deviation are known.
- Not stating that normal distribution is given.
- Not including sample size in the calculation, or making other errors in the calculations.
- Not showing transformation into standard normal.
- Not showing enough workings.
- Incorrect signs. For example “>” instead of “<” or viceversa.
- Errors in notation or probabilities.
- Forgetting to switch P(>) and 1-P(<) to account for more/less. Some students answered 97%
instead of 3%.

See also “Other feedback for questions 1 to 3” below.

Question 3:

The question makes use of a similar calculation as Q2 with a sample size n of 25 a threshold value of
4.98, and the probability for a value below (rather than above) the threshold..

𝑋̅ − 5.0 4.98 − 5.0

𝑃(𝑋̅ < 4.98) = 𝑃 ( < ) = 𝑃(𝑍 < −1) ≈ 0.159
0.1⁄ 0.1⁄
√25 √25
The probability that a sample of 25 tablets has an average Zinc content for each tablet of 4.98mg is
about 16% if the underlying true average is 5.0mg. Although this is low, it is not out of the ordinary,
so there is not much evidence against the original claim of 5.0mg average Zinc content.

Marked by German Puga (german.puga@adelaide.edu.au)

Feedback

Points may have been discounted due to the following reasons:

- Not justifying that we have to use a sampling distribution.

- Not stating that population mean and population standard deviation are known.
- Not stating that normal distribution is given.
- Not including sample size in the calculation, or making other errors in the calculations.
- Not showing transformation into standard normal.
- Not showing enough workings.
- Incorrect signs. For example “>” instead of “<” and viceversa.
- Errors in notation or probabilities.
- Not providing the appropriate conclusion.

Students who performed a hypothesis test got full points if showing all steps and arriving to the right
conclusion. Some of the most common mistakes (and reasons for getting points deducted) were:

- Setting the null and/or alternative hypothesis incorrectly.

- Using the t distribution instead of the standard normal distribution.
- Calculating the critical value/s incorrectly (wrong decision rule).
- Saying that we “accept” the null hypothesis.
- Interpreting the outcome of the hypothesis test incorrectly.

See also “Other feedback for questions 1 to 3” below.

Other feedback for questions 1 to 3

1- Many students explained their answers with not much detail, which often led to lower
marks. Others add a lot of detail, sometimes including unnecessary information. When
incorrect, in some cases, that unnecessary information also led to lower marks.
2- Many students made mistakes in their calculations probably due to not adding parenthesis
in the right places when using the calculator (or Excel). This was a very common easily-
avoidable mistake.
3- Many students do not seem to understand the implications of the central limit theorem. If
the population is normal, the sample mean will be normally distributed for all sample sizes –
even for sample sizes of less than 30. Also, this number (i.e., 30) should not be confused with
what is needed for statistical inference. Many students answered, especially in question 3,
that the sample size was too small for reaching a conclusion, which is incorrect.

Question 4:

The given information about the consumer purchased tablets only provides the sample mean and
sample standard deviation, no information about the population parameters is given. This means
that we have to use the t-distribution.
We have that 𝑋̅=5.03mg, s=0.06mg, and n=100. We also have α=0.05 and degree of freedom =99
(we will use 100 as that is available in the table and a close approximation), which leads to a critical
value t α/2,df = 1.984

The confidence interval is then

𝑠 𝑠 0.06 0.06
[𝑋̅ − 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 , 𝑋̅ + 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 ] = [5.03 − 1.984 ∗ , 5.03 + 1.984 ∗ ] = [5.018,5.042]
√𝑛 √𝑛 √100 √100

The found confidence interval estimate for the Zinc content is between 5.018mg and 5.042mg

Marked by Aaron Blanco (aaron.blanco@adelaide.edu.au)

Feedback

Points may have been discounted due to the following reasons:

- The t-statistic is not used in place of z-score.

- No justification for use of t-statistic e.g., only know sample standard deviation
- Not stating that degree of freedom is n-1 = 99.
- Getting a wrong t-stats value.
- Math errors in calculation of Confidence Interval
- Not enough justification (for example degree of freedom use of 100)
- Incorrect terminology and convention e.g., using σ (population) instead of S (sample).
- No summary of findings in plain English and implication to context of the question.

Question 5

The question requires a hypothesis test to investigate whether there is statistical evidence from the
sample to conclude that the population mean of the Zinc content is greater than 5.0mg.

Step 1: Null Hypothesis H0 : µ = 5.0 , Alternative Hypothesis H1 : µ > 5.0

Step 2: Level of Significance: This is given in the question as 5%

Step 3: Test Statistic: As only a sample variance, but not the population variance is known, we have
𝑋̅ −𝜇
to use the t-distribution with the standardised test statistic 𝑡 = 𝑠⁄
√𝑛

Step 4: Decision rule: We have to apply a right tail One-tail test (based on the alternative hypothesis
that the true value is larger than 5.0mg), so the rejection region is above the critical value, which is
t0.05,99 =1.660
𝑋̅ −𝜇 5.03−5.0
Step 5: Value of the test statistic: 𝑡 = 𝑠⁄ = 0.06/√100 = 5
√𝑛

Step 6: Conclusion: The value of the test statistic is clearly above the critical value and therefore
within the rejection region. This means that we reject the null hypothesis that the true Zinc content
is 5.0mg and accept the alternative hypothesis that it is larger than that.

Alternately, the p-value associated with the test statistic from the student t distribution table would
be less than the p-value of 𝑡0.9995 = 0.0005. The decision rule is that we reject the null hypothesis
when the p-value is less than the level of significance. In this case since 0.0005 is less than 0.05
(implying anything lesser than 0. 0005 is also lower than significance level), we reject the null
hypothesis that the true Zinc content is 5.0mg and conclude that the true Zinc content is larger than
5.0mg.

Alternate solution:

Null Hypothesis H0 : µ = 5.0 , Alternative Hypothesis H1 : µ > 5.0

We can construct a confidence interval (95% confidence interval corresponding to significance level
0.05) to see where it lies with respect to the hypothesised value of 5mg. Since we are using
information from the sample, we will use student t distribution with 99 degrees of freedom.
𝑠 𝑠
To compute the confidence interval [𝑋̅ − 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 , 𝑋̅ + 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 ] we need to first find the
√𝑛 √𝑛
standard deviation and the critical value
0.06
Standard deviation = = 0.006mg
√100

Critical value = 𝑡0.025,99 = 1.984

𝑠
Lower confidence limit = 𝑋̅ − 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 = 5.03 − 1.984 ∗ 0.006 = 5.0181
√𝑛
𝑠
Upper confidence limit = 𝑋̅ + 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 = 5.03 + 1.984 ∗ 0.006 = 5.0419
√𝑛

The confidence interval [5.0181,5.0419] lies above the hypothesised value of 5 mg and we reject
the null hypothesis that the true Zinc content is 5.0mg. Therefore, using information from the
sample, the consumer can conclude at 95% confidence level that the mean zinc content of
multivitamins is greater than 5mg.

Marked by Abbas Hakeem (abbas.hakeem@adelaide.edu.au)

Feedback

Points may have been discounted due to the following reasons:

- Not correctly stating the correct null and alternative hypothesis

 - Wrong critical value used
- Stating wrong decision rule
- Wrong calculations
- Missing / wrong conclusion

This question could be attempted by using regular hypothesis testing by way of comparing the test
statistic and critical values, p-values or confidence interval. In any case it is necessary to state the
null/alternate hypothesis, decision rule, result and conclusion. A lot of points were lost where the
solutions missed components of the test, for example, rejecting the null hypothesis and not stating
the conclusion it leads to. The distribution to be used here would be student t distribution. The
sample size being sufficiently large would allow us to use the standard normal distribution as well.
When this was followed it has to be accompanied by this reasoning, sans which points would be
deducted.

Question 6

a.) If the standard deviation used by the consumer was the population rather than sample
standard deviation, than change would start at step 3 (with steps 1 and 2 identical as
before), as the test statistic would be a z-score based on the standard normal distribution. In
step 4, the critical value would be zc = 1.645.
𝑋̅ −𝜇 5.03−5.0
In step 5, the value of the test statistic would be 𝑡 = 𝑠⁄ = 0.1/√100 = 3
√𝑛
In step 6, the conclusion would be the same as the test statistic is clearly above the critical
value, and therefore within the rejection region.

Alternately, the p-value associated with a z statistic of 3 is 0.0013 which is less than the
significance level and the result and conclusion remain the same.

Alternate solution:

Null Hypothesis H0 : µ = 5.0 , Alternative Hypothesis H1 : µ > 5.0

Instead of the t distribution we now use the standard normal distribution since we know the
population standard deviation. The solution is otherwise the same as step 5 alternate solution.
0.1
Standard deviation = = 0.01mg
√100

Critical value = 𝑧0.025 = 1.96


Lower confidence limit = 𝑋̅ − 𝑧𝛼⁄2 = 5.03 − 1.96 ∗ 0.01 = 5.0104
√𝑛

Upper confidence limit = 𝑋̅ + 𝑧𝛼⁄2 = 5.03 + 1.96 ∗ 0.01 = 5.0496
√𝑛

The confidence interval [5.0104,5.0496] lies above the hypothesised value of 5 mg and we reject
the null hypothesis that the true Zinc content is 5.0mg. Therefore, using information from the
population, the consumer can conclude at 95% confidence level that the mean zinc content of
multivitamins is greater than 5mg.

Marked by Abbas Hakeem (abbas.hakeem@adelaide.edu.au)

Feedback

Points may have been discounted due to the following reasons:

- Missing explanations for steps undertaken

- Not using the correct distribution
- Wrong critical value used
- Wrong calculations
- Missing / wrong conclusion
- Using incorrect standard deviation

It is important in this question to identify what changes in the solution and what remains the same
— the standard deviation from population is used in calculating the test statistic and because we
know the population standard deviation we have to use the standard normal distribution. A lot of
points were lost where the t distribution was used.

b.) If the consumer used a significance level of 1% instead, the following would change from the
above answer. While step 1 is still the same, in step 2, the significance level would be 1%.
Step 3 would not change, the t-distribution would be applicable again. Step 4 would see a
change to the rejection region with the new critical value t 0.01,99 = 2.364. The value of the test
statistic in step 5 would not change, nor would the conclusion in step 6, as the test statistic is
still clearly within the rejection region.

Alternately, the p-value associated with the test statistic is lesser than 0. 0005. The result
and conclusion remain the same.

Alternate solution:

Null Hypothesis H0 : µ = 5.0 , Alternative Hypothesis H1 : µ > 5.0

The solution is the same as step 5 alternate solution except we now use 0.01 level of significance or
99% confidence level.

Standard deviation and degrees of freedom remain same as in Step 5 alternate solution.

Critical value = 𝑡0.005,99 = 2.626

𝑠
Lower confidence limit = 𝑋̅ − 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 = 5.03 − 2.626 ∗ 0.006 = 5.0142
√𝑛
𝑠
Upper confidence limit = 𝑋̅ + 𝑡𝛼⁄2,𝑑𝑓 = 5.03 + 2.626 ∗ 0.006 = 5.0458
√𝑛

The confidence interval [5.0142 ,5.0458] lies above the hypothesised value of 5 mg and we reject
the null hypothesis that the true Zinc content is 5.0mg. Therefore, using information from the
sample, the consumer can conclude at 99% confidence level that the mean zinc content of
multivitamins is greater than 5mg.

Marked by Abbas Hakeem (abbas.hakeem@adelaide.edu.au)

Feedback

Points may have been discounted due to the following reasons:

- Missing explanations for steps undertaken

 - Not using the correct distribution
- Wrong critical value used
- Wrong calculations
- Missing / wrong conclusion
- Using incorrect standard deviation

It is important in this question to identify what changes in the solution and what remains the same
— the critical value is the only thing that changes. A lot of points were lost where the solution was
not separated for parts a and b when they required two solutions with different scenarios.

Question 7

The question asks about the probability that a sample proportion, namely the share of tablets with
little or no vitamin E, is above a certain threshold. This implies that we have to use the Binomial
distribution. Each tablet bought by the consumer is a Bernoulli trial as there are two outcomes
(success=”no vitamin E”, failure= “Vitamin E present”), the probability of success is the same for
each tablet, and tablets are independent as storage conditions were the same for all and did not
depend on other tablets.
We are given that p = 0.3 (probability of success) and 1-p = q = 0.7 (probability of failure), a sample
size of 100, and that the standard deviation is 𝜎 = √𝑝𝑞 ⁄𝑛. Since np and nq larger than 10, we can
use standard normal approximation. We are interested into the probability that more than 33% of
tablets contain no vitamin E, so 𝑃(𝑝̂ > 0.33)
𝑝̂−𝑝 0.33−0.30
𝑃(𝑝̂ > 0.33) = 𝑃 ( > )= P(Z>0.65) = 1-0.744=0.256
√𝑝𝑞⁄𝑛 0.045826

The probability that more than 33% of the 100 tablets purchased by consumer contain no or little
Vitamin Er is about 25.6%.

Marked by Aaron Blanco (aaron.blanco@adelaide.edu.au)

Points may have been deducted due to the following reasons:

- Not stating that this involves sample proportions and the application of the binomial
distribution.
- Not stating that this needs to be Bernoulli trials with binary success/failure, the same
probability p, and independent between observations.
- Getting p and/or q wrong.
- Getting the standard deviation wrong.
- Setting the normalization up incorrectly.
- Calculation errors.
- Not showing working and appropriate formula.
- No summary of findings in plain English.
- Not noting to find (P>Z) (right-area) we need to 1-P(<Z) (left-area).