QUESTION ONE

ANALYSIS:
Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Purity 92.1605 3.02078 20
Hydrocarbon_Level 1.1960 .18930 20

Model Summary
Std. Error Change Statistics
Mode R Adjusted R of the R Square F Sig. F
l R Square Square Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .937a .877 .871 1.08653 .877 128.862 1 18 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), Hydrocarbon_Level

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 152.127 1 152.127 128.862 .000b
Residual 21.250 18 1.181
Total 173.377 19
a. Dependent Variable: Purity
b. Predictors: (Constant), Hydrocarbon_Level

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized 95.0% Confidence
Coefficients Coefficients Interval for B
Std. Lower Upper
Model B Error Beta t Sig. Bound Bound
1 (Constant) 74.283 1.593 46.617 .000 70.936 77.631
Hydrocarbon_ 14.947 1.317 .937 11.352 .000 12.181 17.714
Level
a. Dependent Variable: Purity

2
 QUESTION ONE (CONT’D.)

HYPOTHESIS:
H0: There is no significance in the coefficients.

H1: There is a significance in the coefficients.

DECISION:
Reject H0 if P-value is less than alpha.

P-value = 0.871

alpha = 0.05

CONCLUSION:
Since P-value is greater than alpha, we fail to reject H0.

Therefore, we conclude that there is no significance in the coefficients.

3
 QUESTION TWO

ANALYSIS:

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Wind_Velocity 6.1320 2.52945 25
DC_Output 1.60960 .652278 25

Correlations
Wind_Velocity DC_Output
Wind_Velocity Pearson Correlation 1 .935**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Sum of Squares and 153.554 37.029
Cross-products
Covariance 6.398 1.543
N 25 25
DC_Output Pearson Correlation .935** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
Sum of Squares and 37.029 10.211
Cross-products
Covariance 1.543 .425
N 25 25
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

4
 QUESTION TWO (CONT’D.)

HYPOTHESIS:
H0: There is no significance of correlation.

H1: There is a significance of correlation.

DECISION:
Reject H0 if P-value is less than alpha.

P-value = 0.000

alpha = 0.05

CONCLUSION:
Since P-value is less than alpha, we reject H0.

Therefore, we conclude that there is a significance of correlation.

5
 QUESTION THREE
ANALYSIS:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Statistics_Grade * 214 100.0% 0 0.0% 214 100.0%
Operations_Research_Grade

Statistics_Grade * Operations_Research_Grade Crosstabulation

Count
Operations_Research_Grade
A B C Other Total
Statistics_Grade A 25 6 17 13 61
B 17 16 15 6 54
C 18 4 18 10 50
Other 10 8 11 20 49
Total 70 34 61 49 214

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic
Value df Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 25.555a 9 .002
Likelihood Ratio 24.605 9 .003
N of Valid Cases 214
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5.
The minimum expected count is 7.79.

6
 QUESTION THREE (CONT’D.)

HYPOTHESIS:
H0: There is no independency between the grades of the two courses.

H1: There is independency between the grades of the two courses.

DECISION:
Reject H0 if P-value is less than alpha.

P-value = 0.002

alpha = 0.05

CONCLUSION:
Since P-value is less than alpha, we reject H0.

Therefore, we conclude that there is independency between the grades of the two courses.

7
 QUESTION FOUR

ANALYSIS:

Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Cotton_Percentage * 376 25.3% 1111 74.7% 1487 100.0%
Observations

Cotton_Percentage * Observations Crosstabulation

Count
Observations
1 2 3 4 5 Total
Cotton_Percentage 15 7 7 15 11 9 49
20 12 17 12 18 18 77
25 14 18 18 19 19 88
30 19 25 22 19 23 108
35 7 10 11 15 11 54
Total 59 77 78 82 80 376

ANOVA
Cotton_Percentage
Mean
Sum of Squares df Square F Sig.
Between Groups 23.920 4 5.980 .150 .963
Within Groups 14789.311 371 39.863
Total 14813.231 375

8
 QUESTION FOUR (CONT’D.)

HYPOTHESIS:
H0: Fiber strength is not related to the percentage of cotton in it.

H1: Fiber strength is related to the percentage of cotton in it.

DECISION:
Reject H0 if P-value is less than alpha.

P-value = 0.963

alpha = 0.05

CONCLUSION:
Since P-value is greater than alpha, we fail to reject H0.

Therefore, we conclude that fiber strength is not related to the percentage of cotton in it.

9
 QUESTION FIVE
[A].
Two reasons that make T-test applicable:

1. The data is approximately normally distributed.

2. The samples have similar variances (homogeneity of variance).

[B].

I. ANALYSIS:

One-Sample Statistics
Std. Std. Error
N Mean Deviation Mean
A 10 275.70 8.028 2.539

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 270
95% Confidence Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Difference
t df tailed) Difference Lower Upper
A 2.245 9 .051 5.700 -.04 11.44

HYPOTHESIS: DECISION: CONCLUSION:

H0: Mean = 270 Reject H0 if P-value is less Since P-value is greater
than alpha. than alpha, we fail to
H1: Mean ≠ 270 reject H0.
P-value = 0.051
Therefore, we conclude
alpha = 0.05 that:

Mean = 270.

10
 QUESTION FIVE (CONT’D.)
II. ANALYSIS:

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
B 10 265.30 10.045 3.176

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 260
95% Confidence Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Difference
t df tailed) Difference Lower Upper
B 1.669 9 .130 5.300 -1.89 12.49

HYPOTHESIS: DECISION: CONCLUSION:

H0: Mean = 260 Reject H0 if P-value is less Since P-value is greater
than alpha. than alpha, we fail to
H1: Mean ≠ 260 reject H0.
P-value = 0.130
Therefore, we conclude
alpha = 0.05 that:

Mean = 260

11
 QUESTION FIVE (CONT’D.)

III. ANALYSIS:

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 A 275.70 10 8.028 2.539
B 265.30 10 10.045 3.176

Paired Samples Correlations

N Correlation Sig.
Pair 1 A & B 10 -.371 .292

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Std. Std. Error Difference
Mean Deviation Mean Lower Upper t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1 A-B 10.400 15.005 4.745 -.334 21.134 2.192 9 .056

HYPOTHESIS: DECISION: CONCLUSION:

From the same machine: Reject H0 if P-value is less Since P-value is greater
than alpha. than alpha, we fail to
H0: Mean of A = Mean of B reject H0.
P-value = 0.056
H1: Mean of A ≠ Mean of B Therefore, we conclude
alpha = 0.05 that:

Mean of A = Mean of B

from the same machine

12
 QUESTION FIVE (CONT’D.)
IV. ANALYSIS:

Group Statistics
Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
A A 5 280.40 7.057 3.156
B 5 271.00 6.325 2.828
B A 5 260.00 10.654 4.764
B 5 270.60 6.580 2.943

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Difference
F Sig. t df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
A Equal variances .365 .563 2.218 8 .057 9.400 4.238 -.373 19.173
assumed
Equal variances 2.218 7.906 .058 9.400 4.238 -.393 19.193
not assumed
B Equal variances .604 .459 -1.893 8 .095 -10.600 5.600 -23.514 2.314
assumed
Equal variances -1.893 6.664 .102 -10.600 5.600 -23.978 2.778
not assumed

HYPOTHESIS: DECISION: CONCLUSION:

From different machines: Reject H0 if P-value is less Since P-value is greater
than alpha. than alpha, we fail to
H0: Mean of A = Mean of B reject H0.
P-value = 0.057
H1: Mean of A ≠ Mean of B Therefore, we conclude
alpha = 0.05 that:

Mean of A = Mean of B

from different machines.

13
 QUESTION SIX
ANALYSIS:

Treatment * Response Crosstabulation

Response
1 2 3 4 5 Total
Treatment A 82 84 1 80 80 327
B 76 78 78 78 0 310
C 77 75 75 76 0 303
D 64 67 63 67 0 261
E 70 72 71 69 0 282
Total 369 376 288 370 80 1483

ANOVA
Response
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 57.293 4 14.323 9.389 .000
Within Groups 2254.730 1478 1.526
Total 2312.023 1482

Response
Duncana,b
Subset for alpha = 0.05 Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are
Treatment N 1 2 displayed.
E 282 2.49 a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size =
C 303 2.50 294.781.
D 261 2.51 b. The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic
B 310 2.51 mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
A 327 levels are not guaranteed.
2.98
Sig. .883 1.000

14
 QUESTION SIX (CONT’D.)

[A].

HYPOTHESIS:
H0: There is no significant difference among the 5 treatments.

H1: There is a significant difference among the 5 treatments.

DECISION:
Reject H0 if P-value is less than alpha.

P-value = 0.883

alpha = 0.05

CONCLUSION:
Since P-value is greater than alpha, we fail to reject H0.

Therefore, we conclude that there is no significant difference among the 5 treatments.

[B].

P-value = ─0.040

15
 QUESTION SIX (CONT’D.)

[C].

Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 2.40 2.80 2.61 .143 1483
Residual -1.798 2.202 .000 1.241 1483
Std. Predicted Value -1.473 1.341 .000 1.000 1483
Std. Residual -1.448 1.774 .000 1.000 1483
a. Dependent Variable: Response

16
 QUESTION SIX (CONT’D.)

[D].
Descriptives
Treatment Statistic Std. Error
Response A Mean 2.98 .087
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.80
Mean Upper Bound 3.15
5% Trimmed Mean 2.97
Skewness .031 .135
Kurtosis -1.639 .269
B Mean 2.51 .063
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.38
Mean Upper Bound 2.63
5% Trimmed Mean 2.51
Skewness -.010 .138
Kurtosis -1.356 .276
C Mean 2.50 .065
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.37
Mean Upper Bound 2.62
5% Trimmed Mean 2.49
Skewness .005 .140
Kurtosis -1.373 .279
D Mean 2.51 .069
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.37
Mean Upper Bound 2.65
5% Trimmed Mean 2.51
Skewness .001 .151
Kurtosis -1.367 .300
E Mean 2.49 .066
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 2.36
Mean Upper Bound 2.62
Skewness .010 .145
Kurtosis -1.348 .289

17
 QUESTION SEVEN
ANALYSIS:
Correlations
Number_of_Deposits Number_of_Withdrawals
Number_of_Deposits Pearson 1 -.040
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .850
N 25 25
Number_of_Withdrawals Pearson -.040 1
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .850
N 25 25

HYPOTHESIS:
H0: There is no correlation between the number of deposits and the number of withdrawal.

H1: There is a correlation between the number of deposits and the number of withdrawal.

DECISION:
Reject H0 if P-value is less than alpha.

P-value = ─0.040

alpha = 0.05

CONCLUSION:
Since P-value is less than alpha, we reject H0.

Therefore, we conclude that there is a significant correlation between the number of deposits
and the number of withdrawal.

18
 QUESTION EIGHT
ANALYSIS:

Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Number_of_Withdrawals 20.48 6.941 25
Number_of_Deposits 11.16 2.996 25

Model Summary
Change Statistics
R Adjusted R Std. Error of R Square F Sig. F
Model R Square Square the Estimate Change Change df1 df2 Change
1 .040 a .002 -.042 7.085 .002 .037 1 23 .850
a. Predictors: (Constant), Number_of_Deposits

ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.843 1 1.843 .037 .850b
Residual 1154.397 23 50.191
Total 1156.240 24
a. Dependent Variable: Number_of_Withdrawals
b. Predictors: (Constant), Number_of_Deposits

Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 21.512 5.571 3.862 .001
Number_of_Depo -.092 .483 -.040 -.192 .850
sits
a. Dependent Variable: Number_of_Withdrawals
b. Independent Variable: Number_of_Deposits

Model:
Number_of_Withdrawals = 21.512 – 0.092 Number_of_Deposits

19
 QUESTION NINE [A]
ANALYSIS:
One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Number_of_Deposits 25 11.16 2.996 .599

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 10
95% Confidence Interval
Mean of the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Difference Lower Upper
Number_of_Deposits 1.936 24 .065 1.160 -.08 2.40

HYPOTHESIS:
H0: Mean = 10

H1: Mean ≠ 10

DECISION:
Reject H0 if P-value is less than alpha.

P-value = 0.065

alpha = 0.05

CONCLUSION:
Since P-value is greater than alpha, we fail to reject H0.

Therefore, we conclude that:

Mean is equal to 10.

20
 QUESTION NINE [B]

ANALYSIS:

One-Sample Statistics
N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Number_of_Withdrawals 25 20.48 6.941 1.388

One-Sample Test
Test Value = 15
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Lower Upper
Number_of_ 3.948 24 .001 5.480 2.61 8.35
Withdrawals

HYPOTHESIS: DECISION: CONCLUSION:

H0: Mean = 15 Reject H0 if P-value is less Since P-value is less than
than alpha. alpha, we reject H0.
H1: Mean ≠ 15
P-value = 0.001 Therefore, we conclude
that:
alpha = 0.05
Mean is not equal to 15.

21
 QUESTION TEN

ANALYSIS:
Case Processing Summary
Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Number_of_Students * 500 100.0% 0 0.0% 500 100.0%
Accommodation_Status

Number_of_Students * Accommodation_Status Crosstabulation

Count
Accommodation_Status
0 1 Total
Number_of_Students 1 80 127 207
2 53 84 137
3 31 69 100
4 21 35 56
Total 185 315 500

Chi-Square Tests
Asymptotic Significance
Value df (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 1.958a 3 .581
Likelihood Ratio 1.996 3 .573
Linear-by-Linear .632 1 .427
Association
N of Valid Cases 500
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 20.72.

22
 QUESTION TEN (CONT’D.)

HYPOTHESIS:
H0: There is no association between accommodation status and number of students.

H1: There is an association between accommodation status and number of students.

DECISION:
Reject H0 if P-value is less than alpha.

P-value = 0.581

alpha = 0.05

CONCLUSION:
Since P-value is greater than alpha, we reject H0.

Therefore, we conclude that there is an association between accommodation status and

number of students.

23