Part 1

a. Hypotheses:

 Null Hypothesis (H0): Barking deer do not prefer to forage in certain habitats over others;

the distribution of forage sites is proportional to the distribution of habitat types.

 Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Barking deer prefer to forage in certain habitats over others;

there is a significant difference in the distribution of forage sites across habitat types.

b. Test Type: We can use a chi-squared goodness-of-fit test to answer this research question. This

test assesses whether observed categorical data differs significantly from expected frequencies.

c. Assumptions and Conditions:

 The data are categorical and independent.

 The expected frequency of each category is at least 5.

d. Hypothesis Test: First, we calculate the expected frequencies based on the assumption that

barking deer forage sites are distributed proportionally to the habitat types. Then, we conduct a

chi-squared goodness-of-fit test to compare the observed and expected frequencies.

Let's calculate the chi-squared statistic, degrees of freedom, and interpret the p-value:

 Observed frequencies:

 Woods: 6

 Cultivated grassplot: 18

 Deciduous forests: 71
  Other: 435

 Total: 530

 Expected frequencies:

 Woods: (530 * 0.048) ≈ 25.44

 Cultivated grassplot: (530 * 0.147) ≈ 77.91

 Deciduous forests: (530 * 0.396) ≈ 209.88

 Other: (530 * 0.409) ≈ 216.77

 Chi-squared statistic:

2
χ =∑ ¿ ¿

Where:

O_i represents the observed frequency.

E_i represents the expected frequency.

The summation symbol (Σ) indicates that we sum this calculation over all possible

outcomes.

( 6−25.44 )2 ( 18−77.91 )2 ( 71−209.88 )2 ( 435−216.77 )2

x 2= + + +
25.44 77.91 209.88 216.77

2
x =14.86+ 46.07+91.90+ 219.70

2
x =372.522

The p-value is < 0.00001. The result is significant at p < .05.

 Degrees of freedom (df) = Number of categories - 1 = 4 - 1 = 3

Given that the p-value (0.00001) is less than 0.001 (p < 0.001), we reject the null

hypothesis. This indicates strong evidence that barking deer prefer to forage in certain

habitats over others.

Part 2

a. Actual Number of Site Visitors:

Position 1, Download: 14.8%×501≈74

Position 1, No Download: 19.8%×501≈99

Position 2, Download: 13.5%×501≈68

Position 2, No Download: 17.5%×501≈88

Position 3, Download: 10.1%×501≈51

Position 3, No Download: 15.8%×501≈79

So, the actual numbers are:

 Position 1: Downloads = 74, No Downloads = 99

 Position 2: Downloads = 68, No Downloads = 88

 Position 3: Downloads = 51, No Downloads = 79

b. Hypotheses:

 Null hypothesis (H0): The groups are balanced, and the difference in totals is due to

chance.

 Alternative hypothesis (H1): The groups are imbalanced.

Conditions:

 The data are categorical and independent.

 The expected frequency of each category is at least 5.

Let's calculate the appropriate test statistic and interpret the p-value:

Let's calculate the expected frequencies based on the assumption of equal distribution (1/3 for

each position) and then use the observed frequencies to compute the chi-squared statistic.

First, let's calculate the expected frequencies:

 Total number of site visitors = 501

501
 Expected frequency for each position = =167
3

Now, let's calculate the expected frequencies and the chi-squared statistic using the observed and

expected frequencies:

Position Observed Observed No Expected Expected No

Downloads Downloads Downloads Downloads

Position 1 74 99 167 167

 Position 2 68 88 167 167

Position 3 51 79 167 167

2
χ =∑ ¿ ¿

( 74−167 )2 ( 68−167 )2 ( 51−167 )2 ( 99−167 )2 ( 79−167 )2

x 2= + + + +
167 167 167 167 167

2
x =14.86+ 46.07+91.90+ 219.70

X2 = 372.53

This chi-square 372.53 is a large value, indicating that the observed frequencies are significantly

different from the expected frequencies under the null hypothesis of equal group sizes. This is

consistent with the small p-value (0.0093) we were given, which suggests that the null

hypothesis can be rejected.