Appendix 16

A16.1 t-test of

H0 : = 0 H1 : 0
A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Correlation Weight and B/A Level Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail B

0.4177 3.19 48 0.0013 1.6772 0.0026 2.0106

r = .4177, t = 3.19, pvalue = .0026. There is sufficient evidence to infer that weight and bloodalcohol level are related. A16.2 Two-way analysis of variance

H 0 : 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 H 1 : At least two means differ

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 A ANOVA Source of Variation Rows Columns Error Total B SS 3708.8 997.0 1289.8 5995.5 C df 28 3 84 115 D MS 132.46 332.33 15.35 E F 8.63 21.64 F P-value 6.52E-15 1.77E-10 G F crit 1.61 2.71

F = 21.64; p-value = 0. There is enough evidence to conclude that there are differences in the decrease in test scores between the four types of breakfast meals. A16.3a Chi-squared goodness-of-fit test (the percentages must be converted to actual and expected values and we must include those who did not have cancer)

H 0 : p 1 = 143 / 420,000, p 2 = 9 / 420,000, p 3 = 80 / 420,000, p 4 = 52 / 420,000, p 5 = 57 / 420,000, p 6 = 12 / 420,000, p 7 = 13 / 420,000, p 8 = 419.634 / 420,000

H 1 : At least one p i is not equal to its specified value.

235

2 =

i =1

(f i e i ) 2 ei
D

A B C 1 Actual Expected 2 135 143 3 7 9 4 77 80 5 32 52 6 42 57 7 8 12 8 13 13 9 419686 419634 p-value =

cancer.

0.0515

p-value = .0515. There is not enough evidence to conclude that there is a relationship between cell phone use and b The data are observational. Even if we regard the statistical result as significant we cannot automatically infer that cell phone use causes cancer. Additionally, an examination of the actual and expected values reveals that in all 7 types of cancers the actual values are less than or equal to the expected values, indicating that (if anything) cell phone use prevents cancer. A16.4 t-test of or t-test of 1

H0 : = 0 H1 : > 0
t =r n 2 1 r 2
B C D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A Correlation

Age and Duration Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail

0.558 7.90 138 0 1.6560 0 1.9773

t = 7.90; p-value = 0. There is overwhelming evidence to infer that the older the patient the longer it takes for the symptoms to disappear?

236

A16.5a Equal-variances t-test of 1 2

H 0 : (1 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (1 2 ) > 0

t=

( x 1 x 2 ) (1 2 ) 1 1 s2 p n +n 2 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B C t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Home Outside 59.21 54.91 102.03 88.28 196 152 96.03 0 346 4.06 0.0000 1.6493 0.0001 1.9668

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

t = 4.06, p-value = 0. There is enough evidence to infer that men whose wives stay at home earn more than men whose wives work outside the home. b It may be that men whose wives stay at home work harder, and thus earn more. A16.6 Question 1: Equal-variances t-test of 1 2

H 0 : (1 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (1 2 ) < 0

t=

( x 1 x 2 ) (1 2 ) 1 1 s2 p n +n 2 1

237

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

US Days Canada Days 26.98 29.44 55.90 56.82 300 300 56.36 0 598 -4.00 0.0000 1.6474 0.0001 1.9639

t = 4.00, p-value = 0. There is enough evidence to indicate that recovery is faster in the United States. Question 2: z-tests of p1 p 2 (case 1)

H 0 : (p1 p 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (p1 p 2 ) < 0

z=

1 p 2) (p 1 1 (1 p ) p n + n 2 1
B C D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A z-Test: Two Proportions

Sample Proportions Observations Hypothesized Difference z Stat P(Z<=z) one tail z Critical one-tail P(Z<=z) two-tail z Critical two-tail

U.S. Canada 0.6267 0.6867 300 300 0 -1.55 0.0609 1.6449 0.1218 1.9600

z = 1.55, p-value = .0609. There is not enough evidence to infer that recovery is faster in the United States.

6 months after heart attack: 238

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A z-Test: Two Proportions

Sample Proportions Observations Hypothesized Difference z Stat P(Z<=z) one tail z Critical one-tail P(Z<=z) two-tail z Critical two-tail

U.S. Canada 0.1867 0.1733 300 300 0 0.43 0.3354 1.6449 0.6708 1.9600

z = .43, p-value = 1 - .3354 = .6646. There is no evidence to infer that recovery is faster in the United States. 12 months after heart attack

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A z-Test: Two Proportions

Sample Proportions Observations Hypothesized Difference z Stat P(Z<=z) one tail z Critical one-tail P(Z<=z) two-tail z Critical two-tail

U.S. Canada 0.1167 0.1100 300 300 0 0.26 0.3984 1.6449 0.7968 1.9600

z = .26, p-value = 1 .3984 = .6016. There is no evidence to infer that recovery is faster in the United States. A16.7 Chi-squared test of a contingency table

H 0 : The two variables are independent H 1 : The two variables are dependent
2 =

i =1

12

(f i e i ) 2 ei

239

A B C 1 Contingency Table 2 3 Favored 4 Result 1 5 1 31 6 2 46 7 3 27 8 4 16 9 TOTAL 120 10 11 12 chi-squared Stat 13 df 14 p-value 15 chi-squared Critical

2 25 16 7 2 50

3 17 19 15 3 54

TOTAL 73 81 49 21 224

13.4477 6 0.0365 12.5916

2 = 13.4477, p-value = .0365. There is enough evidence to infer that Pro-Line's forecasts are related to outcomes

and thus, can be useful to bettors. A16.8 t-test of D

H 0 : D = 0 H 1 : D < 0
t= xD D sD / nD
C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means No-Slide 3.73 0.0653 25 0.96 0 24 -3.04 0.0028 1.7109 0.0057 2.0639

Mean Variance Observations Pearson Correlation Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

Slide 3.78 0.0727 25

t = 3.04, p-value = .0028. There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that sliding is slower.

240

A16.9 z-test of p1 p 2 (case 1) (The data were unstacked prior to applying the z-test.)

H 0 : (p1 p 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (p1 p 2 ) > 0

z=

1 p 2) (p 1 1 (1 p ) p n + n 2 1
B C D

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A z-Test: Two Proportions

Sample Proportions Observations Hypothesized Difference z Stat P(Z<=z) one tail z Critical one-tail P(Z<=z) two-tail z Critical two-tail

Optimist Pessimist 0.9499 0.8797 1478 241 0 4.26 0 1.6449 0 1.9600

z = 4.26, p-value = 0. There is sufficient evidence that pessimists are less likely to survive than optimists. A16.10 Simple linear regression with cholesterol reduction (Before After) as the dependent variable a t-test of 1 or test of

H 0 : 1 = 0 H 1 : 1 0
We used the t-test of 1 because parts (b) and (c) use the regression equation to predict and estimate.

241

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

A SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.7138 R Square 0.5095 Adjusted R Square 0.4993 Standard Error 10.53 Observations 50 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 1 48 49 SS 5528 5322 10850 MS 5528.5 110.9 F Significance F 49.87 5.92E-09

Intercept Exercise

Coefficients Standard Error 2.05 3.94 0.0909 0.0129

t Stat 0.52 7.06

P-value 0.6051 5.92E-09

t = 7.06; p-value = 0. There is overwhelming evidence to infer that exercise and cholesterol reduction are related. b. Prediction interval

t / 2, n 2 s 1 + y
A B Prediction Interval

2 1 (x g x) + n ( n 1)s 2 x

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Reduction Predicted value Prediction Interval Lower limit Upper limit 11.14

-10.76 33.05

Interval Estimate of Expected Value Lower limit 5.54 Upper limit 16.75

The cholesterol reduction is predicted to fall between 10.76 and 33.05.

c Confidence interval estimator of the expected value of y

2 1 (x g x) + n (n 1)s 2 x

t / 2, n 2 s y

242

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

A B Prediction Interval

Reduction Predicted value Prediction Interval Lower limit Upper limit 12.96

-8.83 34.76

Interval Estimate of Expected Value Lower limit 7.79 Upper limit 18.14

We estimate that the mean reduction in cholesterol lies between 7.79 and 18.14. A16.11 Instructors: Unequal-variances t-test of 1 2

H 0 : (1 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (1 2 ) < 0

t=

( x 1 x 2 ) (1 2 )
2 2 s1 + s2 n 1 n2

A B C 1 t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances 2 3 Public-Instructors Private-Instructors 4 Mean 39.40 41.23 5 Variance 18.38 24.66 6 Observations 56 130 7 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 8 df 120 9 t Stat -2.54 10 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0061 11 t Critical one-tail 1.6577 12 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0122 13 t Critical two-tail 1.9799

t = 2,54; p-value = .0061. There is enough evidence to conclude that the salaries of instructors at publicly-funded colleges and universities are less than the salaries of instructors at private colleges and universities.

243

Assistant professors: Equal-variances t-test of 1 2

H 0 : (1 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (1 2 ) < 0

t=

( x 1 x 2 ) (1 2 ) 1 1 s2 p n + n 2 1
C

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

Public-Assistant Private-Assistant 54.08 59.37 26.10 32.84 137 130 29.38 0 265 -7.98 2.18E-14 1.6506 4.36E-14 1.9690

t = 7.98; p-value = 0. There is overwhelming evidence to conclude that the salaries of assistant professors at publicly-funded colleges and universities are less than the salaries of assistant professor at private colleges and universities. Associate professors: Equal-variances t-test of 1 2

H 0 : (1 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (1 2 ) < 0

t=

( x 1 x 2 ) (1 2 ) 1 1 s2 p n + n 2 1

244

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

Public-Associate Private-Associate 64.45 71.07 30.96 30.96 162 160 30.96 0 320 -10.69 2.65E-23 1.6496 5.31E-23 1.9674

t = 10.69; p-value = 0. There is overwhelming evidence to conclude that the salaries of associate professors at publicly-funded colleges and universities are less than the salaries of associate professor at private colleges and universities. Professors: Unequal-variances t-test of 1 2

H 0 : (1 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (1 2 ) < 0

t=

( x 1 x 2 ) (1 2 )
2 2 s1 + s2 n 1 n2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

A B t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

Public-Professor Private-Professor 88.89 107.39 49.14 74.99 268 172 0 310 -23.51 3.61E-71 1.6498 7.22E-71 1.9676

t = 23.51; p-value = 0. There is overwhelming evidence to conclude that the salaries of professors at publiclyfunded colleges and universities are less than the salaries of professors at private colleges and universities.

245

A16.12a One-way analysis of variance

H 0 : 1 = 2 = 3 H 1 : At least two means differ

10 11 12 13 14 15 A ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total B SS 1.65 1847.2 1848.9 C df 2 299 301 D MS 0.823 6.18 E F G F crit 3.0259

F P-value 0.1332 0.8753

F = .1332; p-value = .8753. There is no evidence to infer that there are differences between the three groups of patients. b One-way analysis of variance

H 0 : 1 = 2 = 3 H 1 : At least two means differ

10 11 12 13 14 15 A ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total B SS 247.0 2334.6 2581.6 C df 2 299 301 D MS 123.48 7.81 E F 15.81 F P-value 2.96E-07 G F crit 3.03

F = 15.81; p-value = 0. There is overwhelming evidence to conclude that there are differences between the three groups of patients. Multiple comparisons
A B C D E 1 Multiple Comparisons 2 3 LSD Omega 4 Treatment Treatment Difference Alpha = 0.0167 Alpha = 0.05 5 Group 1 After Group 2 After 0.099 0.949 0.922 6 Group 3 After -1.867 0.942 0.922 7 Group 2 After Group 3 After -1.965 0.954 0.922

Group 3 differs from both group 1 and group 2. Groups 1 and 2 do not differ. c. The test assures researchers that the three groups of patients were very similar prior to treatments.

246

A16.13 a. One-way analysis of variance

H 0 : 1 = 2 = 3 = 4 = 5 = 6 H 1 : At least two means differ

13 14 15 16 17 18 A ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total B SS 527,465 1,571,667 2,099,132 C df 5 66 71 D MS 105,493 23,813 E F 4.43 F P-value 0.0015 G F crit 2.3538

F = 4.43; p-value = .0015. There is enough evidence to infer that differences exist between the six groups. b. Two-factor analysis of variance
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 A ANOVA Source of Variation Sample Columns Interaction Within Total B SS 303,247 190,139 34,080 1,571,667 2,099,132 C df 2 1 2 66 71 D MS 151,623 190,139 17,040 23,813 E F 6.37 7.98 0.72 F P-value 0.0030 0.0062 0.4927 G F crit 3.1359 3.9863 3.1359

Test for interaction: F = .72; p-value = .4927. There is no evidence of interaction. Test for gender (columns): F = 7.98; p-value = .0062. There is enough evidence to conclude that there are differences in cash offers between males and females. Test for age: F = 6.37; p-value = .0030. There is enough evidence to conclude that there are differences in cash offers between the three age groups. A16.14 a Chi-squared test of a contingency table

H 0 : The two variables (year and party) are independent H 1 : The two variables are dependent
2 =

i =1

(f i e i ) 2 ei

247

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A B Contingency Table 1990 Democrats 154 Republicans 99 Other 22 TOTAL 275 chi-squared Stat df p-value chi-squared Critical

1996 161 100 42 303

2000 159 97 56 312 19.27 6 0.0037 12.5916

2004 152 87 60 299

TOTAL 626 383 180 1189

2 = 19.27; p-value = .0037. There is overwhelming evidence to infer that party affiliation in Broward County

changed over the four years. b Chi-squared test of a contingency table

H 0 : The two variables (year and party) are independent H 1 : The two variables are dependent
2 =

i =1

(f i e i ) 2 ei
C D E F

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A B Contingency Table 1990 173 117 25 315

Democrats Republicans Other TOTAL

1996 157 128 43 328

2000 136 117 56 309 22.65 6 0.0009 12.5916

2004 146 122 63 331

TOTAL 612 484 187 1283

chi-squared Stat df p-value chi-squared Critical

2 = 22.65; p-value = .0009. There is overwhelming evidence to infer that party affiliation in Miami-Dade changed

over the four years. c Chi-squared test of a contingency table

H 0 : The two variables (County and party in 2004) are independent H 1 : The two variables are dependent
2 =

i =1

(f i e i ) 2 ei
248

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A B Contingency Table Broward 152 87 60 299

Democrats Republicans Other TOTAL

Miami-Dade 146 122 63 331

TOTAL 298 209 123 630 4.44 2 0.1085 5.9915

chi-squared Stat df p-value chi-squared Critical

2 = 4.44; p-value = 1095. There is not enough evidence to infer that party affiliation differ between Broward

County and Miami-Dade County. A16.15 t-test of

H0 : = 0 H1 : 0
A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Correlation CO and NO3 Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail B

0.8913 13.62 48 0 1.6772 0 2.0106

r = .8913, t = 13.62, pvalue = 0; there is enough evidence to infer that the belief is correct. A16.16 t-estimator of
x t / 2 s n

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A B t-Estimate: Mean

Mean Standard Deviation LCL UCL

Commute 24.54 11.63 23.64 25.45

249

Total time spent commuting by all workers: LCL = 129,142,000 (23.64) = 3,052,916,880 minutes UCL = 129,142,000 (25.45) = 3,286,663,900 minutes Case A16.1 Relationship between interest rates and sales: t-test of or 1

H0 : = 0

H1 :
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Correlation

0
A B

Rates and Sales Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail

-0.27 -9.09 1051 0 1.6463 0 1.9622

t = 9.09, p-value = 0. There is overwhelming evidence to infer that interest rates and sales are linearly related. Relationship between interest rates and ages: Spearman rank correlation coefficient test

H0 : = 0

H1 :

0
B

A Correlation 1 2 3 Rates and Age 4 Pearson Coefficient of Correlation 5 t Stat 6 df 7 P(T<=t) one tail 8 t Critical one tail 9 P(T<=t) two tail 10 t Critical two tail

-0.19 -6.32 1051 0 1.6463 0 1.9622

z = 6.01, p-value = 0. There is overwhelming evidence to infer that interest rates and age of business are linearly related. Difference between sales: Unequal variances t- test of 1- 2

H 0 : 1- 2 = 0
.

H 1 : 1- 2 < 0
250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

A B C t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances W Sales 552 60133 101 0 150 -23.37 0.0000 1.6551 0.0000 1.9759 M Sales 1183 128618 952

Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

t = 23.37, p-value = 0. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that businesses owned by women have lower sales than businesses owned by men. Difference between ages: Unequal variances t- test of 1- 2

H 0 : 1- 2 = 0
.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

H 1 : 1- 2 < 0
A B C t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances W Age 9.24 15.98 101 0 139 -7.73 0.0000 1.6559 0.0000 1.9772 M Age 12.58 27.05 952

Mean Variance Observations Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

t = 7.73, p-value = 0. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that businesses owned by men are older than businesses owned by women. Interest rates among the 3 types of businesses: One-way analysis of variance

H 0 : 1= 2 = 3 H 1 : At least two means differ

251

10 11 12 13 14 15

A ANOVA Source of Variation Between Groups Within Groups Total

B SS 3.46 467.4 470.9

C df 2 1050 1052

D MS 1.73 0.45

E F 3.88

F P-value 0.0209

G F crit 3.0043

F = 3.88, p-value = .0209. There is enough evidence to conclude that there are differences in interest rates among the three types of business. Gender of type of business: Ch-squared test of a contingency table

H 0 : The two variables (gender of business) are independent H 1 : The two variables are dependent
A B C 1 Contingency Table 2 3 Gender 4 Business 1 5 1 31 6 2 162 7 TOTAL 193 8 9 10 chi-squared Stat 11 df 12 p-value 13 chi-squared Critical D E F

2 10 76 86

3 60 714 774

TOTAL 101 952 1053

12.75 2 0.0017 5.9915

2 = 12.75; p-value = .0017. There is enough evidence to conclude that the types of businesses women own are different than those of men. Case A16.2a t-tests of D

H 0 : D = 0 H 1 : D > 0
t= xD D sD / nD

Weight

252

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean Variance Observations Pearson Correlation Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

Weight 1 Weight 2 79.89 78.62 255.54 251.09 33 33 0.99 0 32 2.90 0.0034 1.6939 0.0067 2.0369

t = 2.90, p-value = .0034. There is enough evidence to infer that the program is a success in terms of weight level. Cholesterol

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean Variance Observations Pearson Correlation Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

Choles 1 Choles 2 6.87 6.27 0.583 0.618 33 33 0.57 0 32 4.83 0.0000 1.6939 0.0000 2.0369

t = 4.83, p-value = 0. There is enough evidence to infer that the program is a success in terms of cholesterol level.

Fat intake 253

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean Variance Observations Pearson Correlation Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

TotFat 1 TotFat 2 66.56 46.72 967.59 533.91 33 33 0.63 0 32 4.70 0.0000 1.6939 0.0000 2.0369

t = 4.70, p-value = 0. There is enough evidence to infer that the program is a success in terms of fat intake. Cholesterol intake

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean Variance Observations Pearson Correlation Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

DietC 1 DietC 2 242.42 177.12 30618 13032 33 33 0.42 0 32 2.29 0.0144 1.6939 0.0288 2.0369

t = 2.29, p-value = .0144. There is enough evidence to infer that the program is a success in terms of cholesterol intake.

Calories from fat 254

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means

Mean Variance Observations Pearson Correlation Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

PDCF 1 PDCF 2 36.54 30.82 56.72 49.71 33 33 0.75 0 32 6.29 0.0000 1.6939 0.0000 2.0369

t = 6.29, p-value = 0. There is enough evidence to infer that the program is a success in terms of daily calories from fat. b Equal-variances t-test of 1 2

H 0 : (1 2 ) = 0 H 1 : (1 2 ) 0

t=

( x 1 x 2 ) (1 2 ) 1 1 s2 p n +n 2 1

Weight reduction

255

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B C t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Female 1.32 1.54 16 6.51 0 31 0.11 0.4551 1.6955 0.9102 2.0395 Male 1.22 11.17 17

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

t = .31, p-value = .9102. There is no evidence to infer that gender is a factor in weight reduction. Cholesterol reduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B C t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Female 0.48 0.48 16 0.52 0 31 -0.94 0.1776 1.6955 0.3551 2.0395 Male 0.72 0.55 17

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

t = .94, p-value = .3551. There is not enough evidence to infer that gender is a factor in cholesterol reduction.

Fat intake reduction 256

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B C t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Female 14.50 229.91 16 579.26 0 31 -1.24 0.1125 1.6955 0.2251 2.0395 Male 24.88 906.76 17

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

t = 1.24, p-value = .2251. There is not enough evidence to infer that gender is a factor in fat intake reduction. Cholesterol intake reduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B C t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Female 38.46 5683 16 27000 0 31 -0.91 0.1848 1.6955 0.3697 2.0395 Male 90.56 46984 17

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

t = .91, p-value = .3697. There is not enough evidence to infer that gender is a factor in cholesterol intake reduction.

Calories from fat reduction 257

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

A B C t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Female 6.88 18.69 16 26.74 0 31 1.25 0.1103 1.6955 0.2207 2.0395 Male 4.62 34.29 17

Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail

t = 1.25, p-value = .2207. There is not enough evidence to infer that gender is a factor in calories from fat reduction. c t-test of or 1

H 0 : = 0 or H 0 : 1 = 0 H 1 : 0 or H 1 : 1 0
t =r n 2 1r2
or t =

b 1 1 s b1
C D

Age and weight reduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A Correlation

Age and Weight Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail

-0.0980 -0.55 31 0.2937 1.6955 0.5874 2.0395

t = .55, p-value = .5874. There is not enough evidence that age is a factor in weight reduction.

Age and cholesterol reduction 258

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A Correlation

Age and Choles Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail

0.3959 2.40 31 0.0113 1.6955 0.0226 2.0395

t = 2.40, p-value = .0226. There is enough evidence to infer that age is a factor in cholesterol reduction. Age and Fat intake reduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A Correlation

Age and TotFat Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail

-0.1492 -0.84 31 0.2037 1.6955 0.4074 2.0395

t = .84, p-value = .4074. There is not enough evidence that age is a factor in fat intake reduction. Age and Cholesterol intake reduction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A Correlation

Age and Dietc Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail

-0.1258 -0.71 31 0.2427 1.6955 0.4854 2.0395

t = .71, p-value = .4854. There is not enough evidence that age is a factor in cholesterol intake reduction.

Age and Calories from fat reduction

259

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A Correlation

Age and PDCF Pearson Coefficient of Correlation t Stat df P(T<=t) one tail t Critical one tail P(T<=t) two tail t Critical two tail

-0.3628 -2.17 31 0.0190 1.6955 0.0380 2.0395

t = 2.17, p-value = .0380. There is enough evidence to infer that age is a factor in calories from fat reduction.

260