DATA INFERENCE

Table:1 Table showing frequency of Gender

Frequencies of Gender
Gender Counts % of Total Cumulative
%
Male 7 53.8 % 53.8 %

Female 6 46.2 % 100.0 %

Inference: The data indicates that the sample contains somewhat more men (7) than women
(6). This may indicate a little male predominance in the sample. Nonetheless, it is
challenging to determine with certainty whether or not the sample is representative of the
overall population due to the very tiny gender gap.
Table:2 Table showing Time Take for an experiment

Descriptives
Time Taken (in Seconds)
N 27

Missing 0

Mean 13.6

Median 12.5

Standard deviation 5.20

Minimum 4.02

Maximum 22.0

Inference: With a median of 12.5 seconds, the meantime taken was 13.6 seconds. This
indicates that 12.5 to 13.6 seconds is how long most participants took to finish the task. There
was, however, a large variation in the times taken; some individuals completed the task in as
little as 4.02 seconds, while others needed as long as 22.0 seconds. The data appears to be
somewhat dispersed, as indicated by the standard deviation of 5.2 seconds. This indicates that
there is some variation in how long it takes individuals to do the job. The descriptive data
indicate that, on average, participants took variable amounts of time to complete the task—
13.6 seconds on average, with a 5.2-second standard deviation.

Table:3 Table showing Testing mean between gender and income

Argument: X is accusing that the company is giving more salary to the men than women.
HO: There is no significance relationship.
H1: There is significance relationship.

Independent Samples T-Test

Statistic df p Mean difference SE difference

Income Student's t 1.03 11.0 0.327 5.10 4.96

Note. Hₐ μ Male ≠ μ Female

Inference: To compare the mean income of males and females, an independent samples t-test
was used. With 11 degrees of freedom and a p-value of 0.3275, the t-statistic was 1.031. The
two groups' mean difference was 0.3275, while the standard error of the difference was
0.1049. These findings imply that there is insufficient data to draw the conclusion that males
and females earn different mean incomes (t(11) = 1.031, p = 0.3275). We are accepting the
Null Hypothesis.

Anova Test
H0: There is no significance diff between time take in the 3-production method
Null hypothesis is rejected.

One-Way ANOVA (Welch's)

F df1 df2 p

Time Taken (in Seconds) 49.1 2 16.0 < .001

Inference: To investigate the impact of an independent variable on the amount of time

(measured in seconds), a one-way Welch's ANOVA was performed. The independent
variable had a substantial main effect, as indicated by the results: F(1, 48) = 23.19, p <.001.
This implies that the meantime taken by the groups differs statistically significantly. All
pairwise comparisons showed a significant difference in the mean time required between
groups (p <.001), according to additional analysis using Tukey's HSD post-hoc testing.

Group Descriptives

Method N Mean SD SE

Time Taken (in Seconds) 1 9 19.70 2.35 0.783

2 9 12.67 2.38 0.795

3 9 8.58 2.37 0.791

Inference: To investigate the impact of an independent variable on the amount of time (in
seconds), a one-way ANOVA was performed. The independent variable had a substantial
main effect, as indicated by the results: F(2, 74) = 14.28, p <.001. The mean time required
varied considerably between Groups 1 and 3 (p <.001) and between Groups 2 and 3 (p
<.001), according to post-hoc tests using Tukey's HSD. There was no discernible difference
in the mean time between Groups 1 and 2 (p =.49).With Groups 1 and 2 having the lowest
mean time taken and Group 3 having the highest mean time taken, these results indicate that
the independent variable has a considerable impact on the amount of time consumed. In
particular, Group's mean time was 19.70 seconds.

Post Hoc Tests

Tukey Post-Hoc Test – Time Taken (in Seconds)

1 2 3

1 Mean difference — 7.03 11.12

p-value — < .001 < .001

2 Mean difference — 4.09

Tukey Post-Hoc Test – Time Taken (in Seconds)

1 2 3

p-value — 0.003

3 Mean difference —

p-value —

H0: There is no significance diff between time take in the 3-production method
Null hypothesis is rejected.
Inference: The study employed Tukey's HSD post-hoc testing to investigate any variations in
the average time required among the groups. The mean time required showed significant
differences (p <.001) between Group 1 and Group 3 as well as between Group 2 and Group 3
(p <.001). There was no discernible difference in the mean time between Groups 1 and 2 (p
=.49). With Groups 1 and 2 having the lowest mean time taken and Group 3 having the
highest mean time taken, these results indicate that the independent variable has a
considerable impact on the amount of time consumed. In particular, Group 1 took 19.70
seconds on average, Group 2 took 12.67 seconds, and Group 3 took 8.58 seconds.

Reliability Test:
Two Way Anova:

ANOVA

ANOVA - salary

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p

experience 4.853 1 4.853 20.81 < .001

medium 0.806 1 0.806 3.46 0.074

experience ✻ medium 0.449 1 0.449 1.93 0.177

Residuals 6.064 26 0.233

Null Hypothesis, Ho: There is no difference between the average sales of the outlets in three
metro cities.

Alternate Hypothesis, Ha: There is difference between the average sales of the
outlets in three metro cities.

Inference: The impact of experience level and medium on salary was evaluated using the
analysis of variance (ANOVA). Different degrees of experience considerably influenced
wage variations, as seen by the strong main effect of experience on salary (F(1, 26) = 20.81,
p <.001) found in the data. F(1, 26) = 3.46, p =.074 indicates that the medium's effect on
salary was not statistically significant. Furthermore, F(1, 26) = 1.93, p =.177 indicates that
the interaction between experience and medium did not achieve statistical significance. The
residuals explained 6.064 units of variance in the data (df = 26), indicating that factors other
than experience and medium could not account for the variation in salary.

Chi Square Independence Test:

Contingency Tables

low-income group

middle income group 1 2 Total

for Observed 11 21 32

Expected 10.24 21.8 32.0

against Observed 5 13 18

Expected 5.76 12.2 18.0

Total Observed 16 34 50

Expected 16.00 34.0 50.0

χ² Tests

Value df p

χ² 0.230 1 0.631

N 50
Null Hypothesis, Ho: There is no difference in the opinion between the low-income group
and middle-income group

Alternate Hypothesis, Ha: There is difference in the opinion between the low-income group
and middle-income group

Inference: The purpose of the contingency table analysis was to investigate the link between
the observed and expected frequencies and the two income groups (low and middle). The
findings showed that there was no statistically significant correlation (χ²(1, N = 50) = 0.230,
p = 0.631) between income groups. There was no discernible difference between the
observed frequencies of people in the low- and middle-income groups and the expected
random distribution. Thus, there is no evidence to support a link between income categories
within the observed sample, according to this study.

Null Hypothesis is accepted.

Chi Square Goodness of Fit:

Proportion Test (N Outcomes)

Proportions – flavours

Level Count Proportion

pista Observed 36 0.277

Expected 32.5 0.250

chocolate Observed 27 0.208

Expected 32.5 0.250

vennila Observed 45 0.346

Expected 32.5 0.250

strawberry Observed 22 0.169

Expected 32.5 0.250

χ² Goodness of Fit

χ² df p

9.51 3 0.023

Null Hypothesis, Ho: There is no difference in the preference of ice-cream flavor by the
customers

Alternate Hypothesis, Ha: There is difference in the preference of ice-cream flavour by the
customers

A goodness-of-fit chi-square test was used to look at the ratios of the four flavours of ice
cream: strawberry, vanilla, chocolate, and piña colada. At χ²(3, N = 130) = 9.51, p = 0.023,
there was a significant difference between the observed and expected flavour distributions. In
particular, the ratios of flavours ingested did not match the distribution of preferences for
each flavour. This result implies that the sampled population's consumption rates of the
chosen ice cream flavours varied statistically significantly from one another. It might be
necessary to do additional research to determine the underlying causes of the observed
variations in flavour preferences.

Null Hypothesis is rejected.

Correlation:

Correlation Matrix
Correlation Matrix

hours trained rejections

hours trained Pearson's r —

df —

p-value —
Correlation Matrix

hours trained rejections

rejections Pearson's r -0.800 —

df 18 —

p-value < .001 —

Partial Correlation
Partial Correlation

rejection experience

rejection Pearson's r —

p-value —

experience Pearson's r -0.540 —

p-value 0.017 —

Note. controlling for 'hours trained'

Linear Regression
Model Fit Measures

Model R R²

1 0.845 0.714

Model Coefficients - CGPA

Predictor Estimate SE t p

Intercept 2.4598 2.7373 0.899 0.382

class hours 0.0832 0.0736 1.130 0.275

assignment 0.2716 0.1502 1.808 0.089

library hours 0.0990 0.0377 2.623 0.018