Problem 1

A physiotherapist with a male football team is interested in studying the relationship between
foot injuries and the positions at which the players play from the data collected

Forwar Attacking
Striker Winger Total
d Midfielder

Players Injured 45 56 24 20 145

Players Not
32 38 11 9 90
Injured

Total 77 94 35 29 235

1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury?

ANS. The probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury = 145 / 235 = 0.6170
1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger?
ANS. The probability that a randomly chosen player is a forward or a winger = 106 / 235 =
0.4511
1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and has a
foot injury?
ANS. The probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and has a foot
injury = 45 / 235 = 0.1915
1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker?

ANS. The probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker = 45 / 145 = 0.3103
1.5 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is either a forward or an
attacking midfielder?
ANS. The probability that a randomly chosen injured player is either a forward or an attacking
midfielder = 80 / 145 = 0.5517

Problem 2
An independent research organization is trying to estimate the probability that an accident at a
nuclear power plant will result in radiation leakage. The types of accidents possible at the plant
are fire hazards, mechanical failure, or human error. The research organization also knows that
two or more types of accidents cannot occur simultaneously.
According to the studies carried out by the organization, the probability of a radiation leak in
case of a fire is 20%, the probability of a radiation leak in case of a mechanical 50%, and the
probability of a radiation leak in case of a human error is 10%. The studies also showed the
following;

• The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a fire is 0.1%.

• The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a mechanical failure is
0.15%.
• The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a human error is
0.12%.
On the basis of the information available, answer the questions below:

2.1 What are the probabilities of a fire, a mechanical failure, and a human error respectively?

2.2 What is the probability of a radiation leak?

2.3 Suppose there has been a radiation leak in the reactor for which the definite cause is not
known. What is the probability that it has been caused by:
• A Fire.
• A Mechanical Failure.
• A Human Error.
ANS. From the above we know radiation by fire P(RF) = 0.2
radiation by mechanical P(RM) = 0.50
radiation by human error P(RH) = 0.10
similarly, we know radiation occurring simultaneously with fire P(RnF) is 0.001
radiation occurring simultaneously with mechanical failure P(RnM) is 0.0015
radiation occurring simultaneously with human error (RnH) is 0.0012

Ans. 2.1 Probability of fire

# P(F) = P(RnF)/P(RF) = .001/0.2 = 0.005
# probability of mechanical error
# P(M) = P(RnM)/P(RM) = 0.0015/0.50 = 0.003
# probability of human error
# P(M) = P(RnH)/P(RH) = 0.0012/0.10 = 0.012
Ans. 2.2 probability 0f radiation leak P(R)
as we know the events of fire, mechanical failure and human error are mutually exclusive and
they are occurring simultaneously is give so P(R) is:
P(R) = P(RnF)+P(RnM)+P(RnH)
0.001+0.0015+.0012 = 0.0037

Ans. 2.3 The probability of radiation leak occurred due to

fire = P(RnF/P(R)
0.001/0.0037 = 0.27

mechanical failure = P(RnM)/P(R)

0.0015/0.0037 = 0.40

human error = P(RnH)/P(R)

0.0012/0.0037 = 0.32
Problem 3:
The breaking strength of gunny bags used for packaging cement is normally distributed with a
mean of 5 kg per sq. centimeter and a standard deviation of 1.5 kg per sq. centimeter. The
quality team of the cement company wants to know the following about the packaging material
to better understand wastage or pilferage within the supply chain; Answer the questions below
based on the given information; (Provide an appropriate visual representation of your
answers, without which marks will be deducted)

3.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm?
ANS. proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm is
0.11123243744783456

Graphically it is shown as below:

3.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm.?
ANS. Proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm. Is
0.17532394485222952

Its graph is:

3.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5 kg per sq
cm.?

ANS. Proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5 kg per sq cm. Is

0.13055865981823633. Graphically it is shown as below:

3.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between 3 and 7.5 kg per
sq cm.?
ANS. Proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq
cm. Is 0.09121121972586788 . Its graph is:

A combined graph for all the above questions is also given below:

Problem 4:
Grades of the final examination in a training course are found to be normally distributed, with a
mean of 77 and a standard deviation of 8.5. Based on the given information answer the
questions below.

4.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade below 85 on this exam?
ANS. The probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade below 85 on this exam is
0.8266927837484748

4.2 What is the probability that a randomly selected student score between 65 and 87?
ANS. The probability that a randomly selected student score between 65 and 87 is
0.8012869336779058
4.3 What should be the passing cut-off so that 75% of the students clear the exam?

ANS. 71.2668371233333

Problem 5:

Zingaro stone printing is a company that specializes in printing images or patterns on polished
or unpolished stones. However, for the optimum level of printing of the image the stone
surface has to have a Brinell's hardness index of at least 150. Recently, Zingaro has received a
batch of polished and unpolished stones from its clients. Use the data provided to answer the
following (assuming a 5% significance level);

5.1 Earlier experience of Zingaro with this particular client is favorable as the stone surface was
found to be of adequate hardness. However, Zingaro has reason to believe now that the
unpolished stones may not be suitable for printing. Do you think Zingaro is justified in thinking
so?
ANS. To answer this question, we can conduct a hypothesis test to determine whether the
mean Brinell's hardness index of the unpolished stones is less than 150. The null hypothesis
(H0) is that the mean hardness is 150 or greater, while the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that
the mean hardness is less than 150. We can use a one-sample t-test with a one-tailed test at a
5% significance level. The test statistic can be calculated as:

t = (x̄ - μ) / (s / √n)
where x̄ is the sample mean, μ is the hypothesized population mean (150), s is the standard
deviation, and n is the sample size.
For the unpolished stones, we have:

Z= -4.164995056336174

P VALUE= 1.334574901590631e-05
As we can see the mean hardness of unpolished stone is 134.11 which is below the minimum
hardness of 150, we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is evidence to suggest
that the mean hardness of the unpolished stones is less than 150. Therefore, Zingaro may be
justified in thinking that the unpolished stones may not be suitable for printing.

5.2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the same?
ANS. The null hypothesis would be that there is no difference between the two means. To test
this, we can use a two-sample t-test. The t-statistic is -3.24 and the p-value is 0.00073. Since the
p-value is less than 0.05, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is a
difference between the two means. The mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones
is not the same.

Problem 6:

Aquarius health club, one of the largest and most popular cross-fit gyms in the country has
been advertising a rigorous program for body conditioning. The program is considered
successful if the candidate is able to do more than 5 push-ups, as compared to when he/she
enrolled in the program. Using the sample data provided can you conclude whether the
program is successful? (Consider the level of Significance as 5%)
Note that this is a problem of the paired-t-test. Since the claim is that the training will make a
difference of more than 5, the null and alternative hypotheses must be formed accordingly.
Ans. To determine whether the program is successful, we will perform a paired t-test with a
significance level of 5%.
The null hypothesis, H0, is that the mean difference in push-up performance before and after
the program is equal to 5.

The alternative hypothesis, Ha, is that the mean difference is greater than 5.
In this scenario, the p value is 1.1460209626255983e-35 which is smaller than the 0.05. Since
the p-value is much smaller than the significance level of 5%, we reject the null hypothesis.
Therefore, we can conclude that the program was successful.
Problem 7:
Dental implant data: The hardness of metal implant in dental cavities depends on multiple
factors, such as the method of implant, the temperature at which the metal is treated, the alloy
used as well as on the dentists who may favour one method above another and may work
better in his/her favourite method. The response is the variable of interest.
Test whether there is any difference among the dentists on the implant hardness. State the null
and alternative hypotheses. Note that both types of alloys cannot be considered together. You
must state the null and alternative hypotheses separately for the two types of alloys.?
1. Test whether there is any difference among the dentists on the implant hardness. State the
null and alternative hypotheses. Note that both types of alloys cannot be considered together.
You must state the null and alternative hypotheses separately for the two types of alloys.?
ANS. For this problem, we need to test whether there is any difference among the dentists on
the implant hardness for each type of alloy separately. We can use a two-way ANOVA to
perform this test. The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:

For Alloy 1:
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in implant hardness among the dentists using
Alloy 1.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in implant hardness among the dentists
using Alloy 1.
For Alloy 2:
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in implant hardness among the dentists using
Alloy 2.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference in implant hardness among the dentists
using Alloy 2.
2. Before the hypotheses may be tested, state the required assumptions. Are the assumptions
fulfilled? Comment separately on both alloy types.?
Ans. The required assumptions for testing the difference among dentists on implant hardness
are:
1. The hardness of metal implant follows a normal distribution.
2. The variances of implant hardness for each dentist are equal.
3. The assumptions for both alloy types are the same.

3.Irrespective of your conclusion in 2, we will continue with the testing procedure. What do you
conclude regarding whether implant hardness depends on dentists? Clearly state your
conclusion. If the null hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify which pairs of dentists
differ?
ANS. Based on the results of the statistical test, I conclude that there is NO difference in the
hardness of the implants among the dentists. This means that the null hypothesis is truee and
that the alternative hypothesis is false.
4. Now test whether there is any difference among the methods on the hardness of dental
implant, separately for the two types of alloys. What are your conclusions? If the null
hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify which pairs of methods differ?
ANS. We need to perform an ANOVA test separately for each alloy type to test the difference
among methods on implant hardness.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the dentists on the implant hardness
for each alloy.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference among the dentists on the implant
hardness for each alloy.
After performing the test I conclude there is a difference in the hardness of the implants among
the methods. that the corresponding p-value is less than alpha (0.05). Thus, we reject the Null
Hypothesis.
5. Now test whether there is any difference among the temperature levels on the hardness of dental
implant, separately for the two types of alloys. What are your conclusions? If the null hypothesis is
rejected, is it possible to identify which levels of temperatures differ?

ANS. We need to perform an ANOVA test separately for each alloy type to test the difference
among methods on implant hardness.
Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference among the dentists on the implant hardness
for each alloy.
Alternative Hypothesis: There is a significant difference among the dentists on the implant
hardness for each alloy.
After performing the test I conclude there is no difference in the hardness of the implants
among the methods. that the corresponding p-value is more than alpha (0.05). Thus, we fail to
reject the Null Hypothesis.
6. Consider the interaction effect of dentist and method and comment on the interaction plot,
separately for the two types of alloys?

Ans. To analyze the interaction effect of dentist and method for each type of alloy, we can
create two separate plots: one for Alloy 1 and one for Alloy 2. We can also calculate the mean
response for each combination of dentist, method, and alloy to obtain a clearer picture of the
interaction effect.
The interaction effect can be seen by looking at the difference in response between the dentists
and the methods. If there is an interaction effect, the lines representing the different dentists
will not be parallel.
Looking at the interaction plots, we can see that there is a significant interaction effect for Alloy
1 but not for Alloy 2. For Alloy 1, the lines representing the dentists are not parallel, indicating
an interaction effect. For Alloy 2, the lines are mostly parallel, indicating no interaction effect.
In conclusion, the interaction effect between dentist and method is significant for Alloy 1 but
not for Alloy 2.
7. Now consider the effect of both factors, dentist, and method, separately on each alloy. What
do you conclude? Is it possible to identify which dentists are different, which methods are
different, and which interaction levels are different?
To investigate the effect of both factors, dentist and method, separately on each alloy, we can
perform a two-way ANOVA. We will test the following hypotheses:
• Null hypothesis H0: There is no significant effect of the dentist or the method, or their
interaction, on the hardness of the implant for each alloy.
• Alternative hypothesis H1: There is a significant effect of the dentist or the method, or
their interaction, on the hardness of the implant for each alloy.
After performing the test, I conclude there is a difference in the hardness of the implants
among the methods. that the corresponding p-value is less than alpha (0.05). Thus, we reject
the Null Hypothesis.