Scribd
Upload
2 views

Maths Assignment Unit 4

The document presents two statistical analyses: one comparing reading and writing scores among 250 students, and another comparing city MPG between manual and automatic cars with 26 samples each. In the first analysis, the null hypothesis is not rejected, indicating no significant difference in average scores, while in the second analysis, strong evidence is found that manual cars have higher average MPG than automatic cars. The document includes details on hypotheses, test statistics, degrees of freedom, and conclusions for both analyses.

Uploaded by

sasj230
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views

Maths Assignment Unit 4

The document presents two statistical analyses: one comparing reading and writing scores among 250 students, and another comparing city MPG between manual and automatic cars with 26 samples each. In the first analysis, the null hypothesis is not rejected, indicating no significant difference in average scores, while in the second analysis, strong evidence is found that manual cars have higher average MPG than automatic cars. The document includes details on hypotheses, test statistics, degrees of freedom, and conclusions for both analyses.

Uploaded by

sasj230
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Part 1 Paired comparison: Reading vs.

Writing scores (n = 250)

(a) State the hypotheses

Because each student took both exams, we analyse the paired differences

di=readi−writeid_i = \text{read}_i-\text{write}_i.

H0:μd=0(no mean difference between exams)HA:μd≠0(a mean difference exists)\

begin{aligned} H_0 &: \mu_d = 0 \quad\text{(no mean difference between exams)}\\ H_A

&: \mu_d \neq 0 \quad\text{(a mean difference exists)} \end{aligned}

(b) Check the conditions for a paired-tt test

Condition How it is met in this study

Paired data Same 250 students supplied both scores.

Random sample / Students were selected at random; 250 ≪ 10 % of all U.S. seniors

independence ⇒ observations are independent between students.

Normality of the Histogram of dd (read – write) is unimodal and roughly symmetric;

differences with n=250>30n=250>30, the Central Limit Theorem also supports

approximate normality of dˉ\bar d.

All requirements are satisfied.

(c) Test statistic, degrees of freedom, and decision

Given

dˉ=−0.545,sd=8.887,n=250\bar d=-0.545,\quad s_d=8.887,\quad n=250

SEdˉ=sdn=8.887250=0.562SE_{\bar d}= \frac{s_d}{\sqrt n}= \frac{8.887}{\

sqrt{250}}=0.562 t=dˉ−0SEdˉ=−0.5450.562≈−0.97t = \frac{\bar d-0}{SE_{\bar d}} =\frac{-

0.545}{0.562} \approx -0.97

Degrees of freedom for a paired-tt is n−1=249n-1 = 249.

The problem supplies p = 0.39 (two-tailed).

Decision at α=0.05
Because p=0.39>0.05p=0.39 > 0.05, fail to reject H0H_0.

There is not convincing evidence of a difference in average reading and writing scores.

(d) Possible error

We did not reject H0H_0; the only error we could now make is a Type II error: concluding

“no difference” when, in truth, a real mean difference exists.

Context: we might be overlooking a genuine gap between students’ reading and writing

performances.

(e) Would a confidence interval include 0?

Yes. Failing to reject H0H_0 implies the 95 % CI for μd\mu_d should contain 0.

(Indeed, a quick CI uses dˉ±t0.025,249\* SE≈−0.545±1.97(0.562)\bar d \pm t^\

*_{0.025,249}\,SE \approx -0.545 \pm 1.97(0.562), i.e. from about –1.65 to +0.56, which

includes 0.)
Part 2 – Manual vs Automatic City MPG (EPA sample, n₁ = n₂ = 26)

Transmission Mean MPG SD n

Automatic 16.12 3.58 26

Manual 19.85 4.51 26

1) State the hypotheses

H0:μmanual−μauto=0(no difference in average city MPG)HA:μmanual−μauto≠0(a difference

exists)\begin{aligned} H_0 &: \mu_{\text{manual}}-\mu_{\text{auto}} = 0 \quad\text{(no

difference in average city MPG)}\\ H_A &: \mu_{\text{manual}}-\mu_{\text{auto}} \neq 0 \

quad\text{(a difference exists)} \end{aligned}

(If your course wants a one-sided test in favour of manuals, change HAH_A to “ > 0”.)

2) Calculate the tt-statistic (Welch two-sample tt)

Difference of sample means: xˉ ⁣M−xˉ

⁣A=19.85−16.12=3.73SE=sA2nA+sM2nM=3.58226+4.51226≈1.13t=3.731.13≈3.30\

begin{aligned} \text{Difference of sample means} &: \; \bar x_{\!M}-\bar x_{\!A}=19.85-

16.12 = 3.73 \\[4pt] SE &= \sqrt{\frac{s_A^{2}}{n_A}+\frac{s_M^{2}}{n_M}} = \sqrt{\

frac{3.58^{2}}{26}+\frac{4.51^{2}}{26}} \approx 1.13 \\[4pt] t &= \frac{3.73}{1.13} \

approx \boxed{3.30} \end{aligned}

3) Degrees of freedom (Welch–Satterthwaite)

df = (sA2nA+sM2nM) ⁣2(sA2/nA)2nA−1+(sM2/nM)2nM−1 ≈ 48 (rounded)df \;=\; \frac{\

left(\dfrac{s_A^{2}}{n_A}+\dfrac{s_M^{2}}{n_M}\right)^{\!2}}

{\dfrac{\bigl(s_A^{2}/n_A\bigr)^{2}}{n_A-1}+ \dfrac{\bigl(s_M^{2}/n_M\bigr)^{2}}

{n_M-1}} \;\approx\; \boxed{48\text{ (rounded)}}

(A calculator gives 47.7, which we round to 48.)

4) Conclusion using p=0.0029p = 0.0029


At the usual significance level α=0.05\alpha = 0.05 (and even α=0.01\alpha = 0.01):

 p=0.0029<αp = 0.0029 < \alpha

 Reject H0H_0.

Interpretation: The data provide strong evidence that cars with manual transmissions have a

different—specifically higher—average city fuel efficiency than cars with automatic

transmissions for the model year studied.

That covers all four requested items. Let me know if you’d like the confidence-interval

calculation or any additional context!

You might also like