Chap 008

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations
CHAPTER 8
THE COMPARISON OF TWO POPULATIONS

8-1.
n = 25
H0: D = 0
t (24) =
s D = 30.67
D = 19.08
H1: D
D D0
= 3.11
sD / n
Reject H0 at
= 0.01.
Paired Difference Test

Evidence
Size
25
Assumption
Average Difference 19.08 D
Populations Normal
Stdev. of Difference 30.67 sD

Note: Difference has been defined as
Test Statistic 3.1105 t
df 24
Hypothesis Testing
Null Hypothesis
p-value
H0: 1 2 = 0
0.0048
8-2.
n = 40
D = 5 s D = 2.3
H0: D = 0 H1: D
t(39) =
5 0
2.3 /
40
= 13.75
Strongly reject H0. 95% C.I. for D

8-3.
n = 12
At an of
5%
Reject
D = 3.67 s D = 2.45
H0: D = 0
H1: D
2.023(2.3/
40 ) = [4.26, 5.74].
(D = Movie Commercial)
8-1
(template: Testing Paired Difference.xls, sheet: Sample Data)

Data
Current Previous Evidence
M
C
Size
Average Difference3.66667 D
Assumption
15
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
17
25
17
14
18
17
16
14
9
Stdev. of Difference2.44949sD
21
16
11
df
8
At an of
12Hypothesis Testing
13
Null Hypothesis
p-value
5%
H0: 1 2 = 0
15
0.0020
Reject
H
:
>=
13
0
0.9990
0
1
2
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.0010
Reject
At
8-4.
= 0.05, we reject H0. There are more viewers for movies than commercials.
n = 60
H0: D
t(24) =
Populations Normal
D = 0.2 s D = 1
0 H1: D > 0
0.2 0
1/
60
= 1.549. At
= 0.05, we cannot reject H0.

Evidence
Size
60
Assumption
Average Difference
0.2
Populations Normal
Stdev. of Difference
sD

df 59
Hypothesis Testing
Null Hypothesis
p-value
H0: 1 2 = 0
0.1267
H0: 1 2 >= 0
0.9367
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.0633
8-5.
n = 15
D = 3.2 s D = 8.436
H0: D 0 H1: D > 0

t (14) =
3.2 0
8.436 / 15
At an of
5%
(D = After Before)
= 1.469
8-2
There is no evidence that the shelf facings are effective.

8-6.
n = 12
s D = 43.99
D = 37.08
H0: D = 0
H1: D 0
(template: Testing Paired Difference.xls, sheet: Sample Data)

Data
Current Previous Evidence
France Spain
Size
12
Assumption
258
214
Populations Normal
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
289
228
200
190
350
310
212
195
175
299
190
250
Stdev. of Difference 43.9927sD
190
185
114
df 11
At an of
378
Null Hypothesis
p-value
5%
H0: 1 2 = 0
230
0.0139
Reject
H0: 1 2 >= 0
160
0.9930
H0: 1 2 <= 0
120
0.0070
Reject
220
105
Reject H0. There is strong evidence that hotels in Spain are cheaper than those in France, based
on this small sample. p-value = 0.0139
8-7.
Power at D = 0.1
H0: D 0
n = 60
D = 1.0
H1: D > 0
C = 0 + 2.326( / n ) = 0.30029
P( D > C | D = 0.1)
= P( D > 0.30029 | D = 0.1)
= P
Z >
We need:
0.30029 0.1
1 / 60
= P(Z > 1.551) = 0.0604

8-8.
n = 20
D = 1.25 s D = 42.896
H0: D = 0
H1: D
= 0.01
8-3
t (19) =
1.25 0
42.89 /
= 0.13
20
Do not reject H0; no evidence of a difference.

Evidence
Size
20
Assumption
Populations Normal

df 19
Hypothesis Testing
Null Hypothesis
p-value
H0: 1 2 = 0
0.8977
8-9.
At an of
5%
n1 = 100 n 2 = 100 x1 = 76.5 x 2 = 88.1

H0: 2 1 = 0
H1:
2 1
s1 = 38
s 2 = 40
(Template: Testing Population Means.xls, sheet: Z-test from Stats)

(need to use the t-test since the population std. dev. is unknown)
Evidence
Assumptions
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
100
76.5
38
100
88.1
40
Populations Normal
n
x-bar
s
H0: Population Variances Equal

F ratio 1.10803
p-value 0.6108
Assuming Population Variances are Equal

Pooled Variance 1522 s2p
Test Statistic -2.1025t
df 198
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
At an of Confidence Interval for difference in Population Means

Confidence
1
p-value
5%
Interval
0.0368
Reject
95%
-11.6 10.8801 = [ -22.48, -0.7199 ]
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.0184
0.9816
Reject
Reject H0. There is evidence that gasoline outperforms ethanol.

8.10. n1 = n 2 = 30
H0: 1 2 = 0
H1: 1 2
Nikon (1): x1 = 8.5
s1 = 2.1
Minolta (2): x 2 = 7.8 s 2 = 1.8
8-4
z=
8.5 7.8
2
( 2.1 / 30) + (1.8 / 30)
= 1.386
Do not reject H0. There is no evidence of a difference in the average ratings of the two cameras.
8-11.
Bel Air (1):
n1 = 32
x1 = 2.5M
s1 = 0.41M
Marin (2):
n 2 = 35
x 2 = 4.32M
s 2 = 0.87M
H0: 1 2 = 0
H1: 1 2
(Template: Testing Population Means.xls, sheet: t-test from Stats)

Equal variance assumptions is questionable.
t-Test for Difference in Population Means
Evidence
Assumptions
Populations Normal
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
32
2.5
0.41
35
4.32
0.87
n
x-bar
s

F ratio 4.50268
p-value 0.0001

Warning: Equal variance assumption is questionable.
Pooled Variance 0.47609 s2p

Test Statistic -10.7845 t
df
65
At an of
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
p-value
0.0000
5%
Reject
0.0000
1.0000
Reject
Confidence Interval for difference in Population Means

Confiden
ce
1
Interval
95%
-1.82 0.33704 = [
-2.157, -1.48296]
Assuming Population Variances are Unequal

df
49
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
p-value
0.0000
0.0000
1.0000
At an of
5%
Reject
Reject
8-5

1 Confidence Interval
95%
-1.82 0.32946 = [
-2.1495, -1.49054]
Reject H0. There is evidence that the average Bel Air price is lower.
8-12.

H0: J SP = 0
H1: J SP 0

Evidence
Assumptions
Populations Normal
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
40
15
3
40
6.2
3.5
n
x-bar
s

F ratio 1.36111
p-value 0.3398

Test Statistic 12.0735t
df 78
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0

Confidence
1 Interval
p-value
5%
0.0000 Reject 95%
8.8 1.45107 = [ 7.34893, 10.2511 ]
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
1.0000
0.0000
Reject
Reject the null hypothesis. The global equities outperform U.S. market.
8-13.
Music:
n1 = 128
x1 = 23.5 s1 = 12.2
Verbal: n 2 = 212
x 2 = 18.0 s 2 = 10.5
H0: 1 2 = 0
H1: 1 2
z=
23.5 18.0
2
(12.2 / 128) + (10.5 2 / 212)
0
= 4.24
Reject H0. Music is probably more effective.
8-6
Evidence
Size
Mean
Sample1 Sample2
128
212 n
23.5
18
x-bar
Popn. 1 Popn. 2
Popn. Std. Devn. 12.2
10.5
Hypothesis Testing
Test Statistic 4.2397 z
At an of
p-value
5%
0.0000
Reject
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
8-14.
n1 = 13
n 2 = 13 x1 = 20.385 x 2 = 10.385
s1 = 7.622 s 2 = 4.292
H0: u1 = u2
S p2 =
H1: u1
(13
t ( 24 ) =
= .05
u2
1) 7.622 2 + (13 1) 4.292 2

= 38.2581
(13 +13 2)
20.385 10.385
38.2581 1 + 1
13
13
= 4.1219
df = 24.
Use a critical value of 2.064 for a two-tailed test. Reject H0. The two methods do differ.
8-15.
Liz (1):
n1 = 32
x1 = 4,238
s1 = 1,002.5
Calvin (2):
n 2 = 37
x 2 = 3,888.72 s 2 = 876.05
a. one-tailed: H0: 1 2 0 H1: 1 2 > 0

b. z =
4,238 3,888.72 0
(1,002.5 2 / 32) + (876.052 / 37)
= 1.53
c. At = 0.5, the critical point is 1.645. Do not reject H0 that Liz Claiborne models do not get
more money, on the average.
d. p-value = .5 .437 = .063 (It is the probability of committing a Type I error if we choose to
reject and H0 happens to be true.)
8-7
e.
S 2p =
(10 1)1002.5 2 + (11 1)876.05 2

(10 + 11 2)
t ( 24 ) =
4238 3888.72
879983.804 1 + 1
10
11
= 879983.804
= 0.8522
df = 19
8-16.

H0: 1 2 = 0
H1: 1 2 0
Evidence
Sample1
Sample2
28
0.19
5.72
28
0.72
5.1
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Assumptions
Populations Normal
n
x-bar
s

F ratio 1.25792
p-value 0.5552

Pooled Variance29.3642s2p
df 54
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0

Confidence
1 Interval
p-value
1%
0.7158
99%
-0.53 3.86682 = [ -4.3968, 3.33682]
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.3579
0.6421
Do not reject the null hypothesis. Pre-earnings announcements have no impact on earnings on
stock investments.
8-17.
Non-research (1):
n1 = 255
s1 = 0.64
Research (2):
n 2 = 300 s 2 = 0.85
x 2 x1 = 2.54
95% C.I. for 2 1 is: ( x 2 x1 ) z / 2 ( s1 2 / n1 ) + ( s 2 2 / n 2 )
= 2.54
1.96
(.64
/ 255) +(.85
/ 300)
= [2.416, 2.664] percent.
8-8
8-18.
Audio (1):
n1 = 25 x1 = 87
s1 = 12
Video (2):
n 2 = 20 x 2 = 64
s 2 = 23
H0: 1 2 = 0
H1: 1 2
x1 x 2 0
t(43) =
(n1 1) s1 + (n 2 1) s 2
n1 + n 2 2
1
1 = 4.326
+
n1 n 2
Reject H0. Audio is probably better (higher average purchase intent). Waldenbooks should
concentrate in audio.
Evidence
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
25
87
12
20
64
23
n
x-bar
s

df
43
At an of
p-value
5%
0.0001
Reject
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
8-19.
With training (1):
n1 = 13
Without training (2): n 2 = 15

H0: 1 2
x1 = 55
s1 = 8
x 2 = 48 s 2 = 6
4,000 H1: 1 2 > 4,000

(55 48) 4
t (26) =
(12)(8) + (14)(6) 1
1 = 1.132
+
26
13 15
The critical value at = .05 for t (26) in a right-hand tailed test is 1.706. Since 1.132 < 1.706,
there is no evidence at = .05 that the program executives get an average of $4,000 per year
more than other executives of comparable levels.
8-20.
(Use template: testing difference in means.xls)

H0: P - L= 0
H1: P - L 0
8-9

Evidence
Assumptions
Populations Normal
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
20
1
1.1
20
6
2.5
n
x-bar
s

F ratio 5.16529
p-value 0.0008
The variances are not equal.

df 26
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
At an Confidence Interval for difference in Population

of
Means
Confidence
1
p-value
5%
Interval
0.0000 Reject 95%
-5 1.25539 = [ -6.2554, -3.74461 ]
0.0000 Reject
1.0000
Reject the null hypothesis: the average cost of beer is cheaper in Prague. Londoners save between
$3.74 and $6.26.
8-21.

H0: 1 2 = 0
H1: 1 2 0
Evidence
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
US
China
15
3.8
2.2
18
6.1
5.3
8-10
n
x-bar
s
Assumptions
Populations Normal
F ratio 5.80372
p-value 0.0018
Equal variance assumption is violated.

Assuming Population Variances are
Unequal
df 23
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
Confidence Interval for difference in Population

At an of Means
Confidence
1
p-value
1%
Interval
0.1073
99% -2.3 3.85252 = [ -6.1525, 1.55252 ]
0.0536
0.9464
Do not reject the null hypothesis (p-value = 0.1073), investment returns are the same in China and
the US.
8-22.
Old (1):
n1 = 19
x1 = 8.26 s1 = 1.43
New (2):
n 2 = 23
x 2 = 9.11 s 2 = 1.56
H1: 2 1 > 0
H0: 2 1 0
9.11 8.26 0
t (40) =
18(1.43) + 22(1.56) 1
1 = 1.82
+
40
19 23
Some evidence to reject H0 (p-value = 0.038) for the t-distribution with df = 40, in a one-tailed test.
8-23.
Take proposed route as population 1 and alternate route as 2. Assume equal variance for both
populations.
H0: 1 2 0
H1: 1 2 > 0
p-value from the template = 0.8674
cannot reject H0
8-24.

H0: 1 2 = 0
H1: 1 2 0
8-11
Evidence
Assumptions
Populations Normal
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
20
3.56
2.8
20
4.84
3.2
n
x-bar
s

F ratio 1.30612
p-value 0.5662

df
38
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
At an of
p-value
5%
0.1862
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.0931
0.9069
Do not reject the null hypothesis. Neither investment outperforms the other.
8-25.
Yes (1):
n1 = 25
x1 = 12
No (2):
n 2 = 25
x 2 = 13.5
s1 = 2.5
s2 = 1
Assume independent random sampling from normal populations with equal population variances.
H0: 2 1 0
H1: 2 1 > 0
13.5 12
t(48) =
At
24( 2.5) + 24(1) 1

1 = 2.785
+
48
25 25
= 0.05, reject H0. Also reject at
= 0.01. p-value = 0.0038.
Evidence
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
Sample1 Sample2
25
25
n
12
13.5 x-bar
2.5
1
s

df
48
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
p-value
0.0076
At an of
5%
Reject
H0: 1 2 >= 0
0.0038
Reject
8-12
8-26.
H0: 1 2 = 0
H1: 1 2
.1331 .105 0
z=
20(.09) + 27(.122) 1
1 = 0.8887
+
47
21 28
Do not reject H0. There is no evidence of a difference in average stock returns for the two periods.
8-27.

H0: N - O 0
H1: N - O > 0
Evidence
Assumptions
Populations Normal
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
8
3
2
10
2.3
2.1
n
x-bar
s

F ratio 1.1025
p-value 0.9186

df
16
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
p-value
0.4834
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.7583
0.2417
At an of
5%
Do not reject the null hypothesis. (p-value = 0.2417) The new advertising firm has not resulted in
significantly higher sales.
8.28.
From Problem 8-25:

n1 = n 2 = 25 x1 = 12
x 2 = 13.5
s1 = 2.5
s2 = 1
We want a 95% C.I. for 2 1 :

( x 2 x1 )
2.011
= (13.5 12) 2.001
(n1 1) s1 + (n 2 1) s 2
n1 + n 2 2
2
1
1
+
n1 n 2
24( 2.5) + 24(1) 1

1
+
48
25 25
= [0.4170, 2.5830] percent.
8-13
8-29.
Before (1):
x1 = 85 n1 = 100
After (2):
x 2 = 68 n 2 = 100
H0: p1 p2
H1: p1 p2 > 0
p 1 p 2
z=
.85 .68
1
1
p (1 p ) +
n1 n 2
1 = 2.835
1
(.765)(.235)
+
100
100
Reject H0. On-time departure percentage has probably declined after NWs merger with Republic.
p-value = 0.0023.
Evidenc
e
Sample Sample
1
2
Size 100
100 n
#Successes 85
68 x
Proportion 0.8500 0.6800 p-hat
Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesized Difference Zero
Pooled p-hat 0.7650
Null Hypothesis
H0: p1 - p2 = 0
H0: p1 - p2 >= 0
H0: p1 - p2 <= 0
8-30.
p-value
0.0046
0.9977
0.0023
At an of
5%
Reject
Reject
Small towns (1):
n1 = 1,000 x 1 = 850
Big cities (2):
n 2 = 2,500 x 2= 1,950
H0: p1 p2
z=
H1: p1 p2 > 0
850 1,950
1,000 2,500
850 + 1,950 2,800 1 1
1 +
3,500 3,500 1,000 2,500
= 4.677
Reject H0. There is strong evidence that the percentage of word-of-mouth recommendations in
small towns is greater than it is in large metropolitan areas.
8.31.
n1 = 31 x 1 = 11
H0: p1 p2 = 0
n 2 = 50
H1: p1 p2
x 2= 19
0
8-14
p 1 p 2
1
1 = 0.228
p (1 p ) +
n1 n 2
Do not reject H0. There is no evidence that one corporate raider is more successful than the other.
z=
8-32.
1 = 0.13
p
Before campaign (1): n1 = 2,060

n 2 = 5,000
After campaign (2):

H0: p2 p1
.05
2 = 0.19
p
H1: p2 p1 > .05
p 2 p 1 D
z=
0.19 0.13 .05
p 1 (1 p 1 ) p 2 (1 p 2 ) =
+
n1
n2
(.13)(.87) (.19)(.81) = 1.08

+
2,060
5,000
No evidence to reject H0; cannot conclude that the campaign has increased the proportion of people
who prefer California wines by over 0.05.
8-33.
95% C.I. for p2 p1:

= .06 1.96
2 p
1 ) 1.96
(p
p 1 (1 p 1 ) p 2 (1 p 2 )
+
n1
n2
(.13)(.87) (.19)(.81)
+
= [0.0419, 0.0781]
2,060
5,000
We are 95% confident that the increase in the proportion of the population preferring California
wines is anywhere from 4.19% to 7.81%.
Confidence Interval
1
95%
Confidence Interval
0.0600 0.0181
= [
0.0419 , 0.0782 ]
8.34.The statement to be tested must be hypothesized before looking at the data:

n1 = 650 x 1 = 48
Chase Man. (1):
n 2 = 480
Manuf. Han. (2):
x 2 = 20
H0: p 1 p 2 0 H1: p 1 p 2 > 0

p 1 p 2
1
1 = 2.248
p (1 p ) +
n1 n 2
Reject H0. p-value = 0.0122.
z=
8-35.
American execs (1): n1 = 120

European execs (2):
H0: p 1 p 2 0
n 2 = 200
x 1 = 34
x 2 = 41
H1: p 1 p 2 > 0
8-15
.283 .205
z=
1 = 1.601
1
(.234)(1 .234)
+
120 200
At = 0.05, there is no evidence to conclude that the proportion of American executives who
prefer the A380 is greater than that of European executives. (p-value = 0.0547.)
Evidence
Sample Sample
1
2
Size 120
200 n
#Successes
34
41
x
Hypothesis Testing
Pooled p-hat 0.2344
At an of
p-value
5%
0.1093
0.9454
0.0546
Null Hypothesis
H0: p1 - p2 = 0
H0: p1 - p2 >= 0
H0: p1 - p2 <= 0
8-36.
Cleveland (1):
n1 = 1,000 x 1 = 75
1 = .075
p
Chicago (2):
n 2 = 1,000 x 2 = 72
2 = .072
p
H0: p 1 p 2 = 0
H1: p 1 p 2
p 1 p 2
z=
= (72 +75)/2,000 = .0735
1
1 = 0.257
p (1 p ) +
n1 n 2
We cannot reject H0. p. value = 0.7971

8-37.
(Use template: testing difference in proportions.xls)

H0: pQ pN = 0
H1: pQ pN 0
8-16
Comparing Two Population Proportions

Evidence
Sample Sample
1
2
Size 100
100 n
#Successes
18
6
x
Hypothesis Testing
Pooled p-hat 0.1200
At an of
p-value
5%
0.0090 Reject
Null Hypothesis
H0: p1 - p2 = 0
Reject the null hypothesis, the new accounting method is more effective.
8-38.

H0: pC pD = 0
H1: pC pD 0
Evidence
Sample Sample
1
2
Size 100
100 n
#Successes
32
19
x
Hypothesis Testing
Pooled p-hat 0.2550
At an of
p-value
1%
0.0349
Null Hypothesis
H0: p1 - p2 = 0
Do not reject the null hypothesis: the proportions are not significantly different.
8-39.
Motorola (1):
n1 = 120 x 1 = 101
p1 = .842
Blaupunkt (2):
n 2 = 200 x 2 = 110
p2 = .550
H0: p 1 p 2
z=
H1: p 1 > p 2
.842 .550
= (101 +110)/320 = .659
1 = 5.33
1
(.659)(1 .659)
+
120 200
8-17
Strongly reject H0; Motorolas system is superior (p-value is very small).

8-40.
Old method (1):
n1 = 40
2
s1 = 1,288
New method (2):
n 2 = 15
2
s 2 = 1,112
H0: 12 22 H1: 12 > 22

use = .05
2
2
F (39,14) = s 1 /s 2 = 1,288/1,112 = 1.158
The critical point at = .05 is F (39,14) = 2.27 (using approximate df in the table). Do not reject H0.
There is no evidence that the variance of the new production method is smaller.
F-Test for Equality of Variances
Size
Sample 1 Sample 2
40
15
Variance
1288
1112
Test Statistic 1.158273 F

df1
39
df2
14
Null Hypothesis
H0: 21 - 22 = 0
H0: 21 - 22 >= 0
H0: 21 - 22 <= 0
8.41.
p-value
0.7977
0.6012
0.3988
At an of
5%
Test the equal-variance assumption of Problem 8-27:

H0: 12 = 22 H1: 12 22
F = 1.1025
Assumptions
Populations Normal
F ratio 1.1025
pvalue 0.9186
Do not reject H0. Variances are equal.

8-42.
Yes (1):
n1 = 25 s1= 2.5
No (2):
n 2 = 25 s2= 1
H0: 12 = 22
H1: 12 22
Put the larger s 2 in the numerator and use 2 :
F (24,24) = s12/ s22 = (2.5) 2/(1) 2 = 6.25
8-18
From the F table using = .01, the critical point is F (24,24) = 2.66. Therefore, reject H0. The
population variances are not equal at = 2(.01) = 0.02.
Size
Sample 1 Sample 2
25
25
Variance
6.25
Test Statistic
df1
df2
6.25
24
24
Null Hypothesis
H0: 21 - 22 = 0
H0: 21 - 22 >= 0
H0: 21 - 22 <= 0
p-value
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
1
F
At an of
5%
Reject
Reject
8-43.
n1 = 21 s1 = .09 n2 = 28
s2 = .122
2
2
F (27,20) = (.122) /(.09) = 1.838
At = .10, we cannot reject H0 because the critical point for = .05 from the table with dfs =
30, 20 is 2.04 and for dfs 24, 20 it is 2.08. We did not reject H0 at = .10 so we would also not
reject it at = .02. Hence this particular C.I. contains the value 1.00.
8-44.
Before (1):
n1 = 12 s1 2 = 16,390.545
After (2):
n 2 = 11 s 2 2 = 86,845.764
H0: 12 = 22 H1: 12 22
F (10,11) = 5.298
The critical point from the table, using = .01, is F (10,11) = 4.54. Therefore, reject H0. The
population variances are probably not equal. p-value < .02 (double the ).
8-19

Size
Sample 1 Sample 2
11
12
Variance 86845.76
16390.55

df1
10
df2
11
Null Hypothesis
H0: 21 - 22 = 0
H0: 21 - 22 >= 0
H0: 21 - 22 <= 0
p-value
0.0109
0.9945
At an of
1%
0.0055
Reject
8-45.
n1 = 25 s1 = 2.5 n2 = 25
s2 = 3.1
2
2
2
H0: 1 = 2 H1: 1 22 = .02
F (24,24) = (3.1)2/(2.5)2 = 1.538
From the table: F .01(24,24) = 2.66. Do not reject H0. There is no evidence that the variances in the two
waiting lines are unequal.
8-46.
nA = 25 sA2 = 6.52 nB = 22
sB2 = 3.47
H0: A2 = B2 H1: A2 B2 = .01
F (24,21) = 6.52/3.47 = 1.879
The critical point for = .01 is F (24,21) = 2.80. Do not reject H0. There is no evidence that stock A
is riskier than stock B.
Size
Sample 1 Sample 2
25
22
Variance
6.52
3.47

df1
24
df2
21
Null Hypothesis
H0: 21 - 22 = 0
H0: 21 - 22 >= 0
H0: 21 - 22 <= 0
p-value
0.1485
0.9258
0.0742
At an of
1%
8-20
8.47.
The assumptions we need are: independent random sampling from the populations in question, and
normal population distributions. The normality assumption is not terribly crucial as long as no
serious violations of this assumption exist. In time series data, the assumption of random sampling
is often violated when the observations are dependent on each other through time. We must be
careful.
8-48.

H1: Leg Knee 0
H0: Leg Knee= 0
Evidence
Sample1 Sample2
Size 200
Mean 10402
Std. Deviation 8500
200 n
11359 x-bar
9100 s
Assumptions
Populations Normal
F ratio 1.14616
p-value 0.3367

Pooled Variance 7.8E+07 s2p
df 398
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
At an of
p-value
5%
0.2778
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.1389
0.8611
Do not reject the null hypothesis. The average cost of the two procedures are similar.
8.49.99% C.I. for : Leg Knee:
99%
-9572278.97 =[ -3235.97, 1321.97 ]
The C.I. contains zero as expected from the results of Problem 8-48.
d = 51
8.50.
d = 4.636
s d = 7.593
H0: u d 0 H1: u d > 0
= 2.025
7.593 / 11
t (10) =
4.636
Reject H0. Performance did improve after the sessions.
8-21
8.51.For Problem 8-50:

95% C.I.: D t (10) s d / n
7.593
= 4.636 5.101 = [0.465, 9.737]

11
Confidence Intervals for the Difference in Means
(1 - ) Confidence Interval
95%
4.636
5.10105 = [ -0.465,
9.73705]
= 4.636 2.228
8-52.

H0: pNFL pSCI = 0
H1: pNFL pSCI 0
Evidence
Sample Sample
1
2
Size 200
200 n
#Successes
96
52
x
Hypothesis Testing
Pooled p-hat 0.3700
Null Hypothesis
H0: p1 - p2 = 0
H0: p1 - p2 >= 0
H0: p1 - p2 <= 0
At an of
p-value
5%
0.0000 Reject
1.0000
0.0000 Reject
Reject H0. There is evidence that NFL viewers watch more commercials than those viewing
Survivor.
8.53.99% C.I. pNFL pSCI (for the difference between viewing commercials for NFL viewers vs. Survivor
viewers.)
Confidence Interval
1
99%
Confidence Interval
0.2200 0.1211
= [
0.0989 , 0.3411 ]
The C.I. does not contain zero, as expected.
8-22
8-54.

H0: CR Guat = 0
H1: CR Guat 0
Evidence
Assumptions
Populations Normal
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
15
1242
50
15
1240
50
n
x-bar
s

F ratio
1
p-value 1.0000

df 28
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
p-value
0.9136
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.5432
0.4568
At an of
5%
Do not reject the null hypothesis. The number of roses imported from both countries is about the
same.
8-55.
x1 = 60
n1 = 80
x2= 65
H0: p1 p2 = 0
H1: p1 p2
p 1 p 2 0
z=
1
1
p (1 p ) +
n1 n 2
n2 = 100
= 125/180 = .6944
0
.75 .65
1 = 1.447
1
(.6944)(1 .6944)
+
80 100
Do not reject H0. (There is no evidence that one movie will be more successful than the other
(p-value = 0.1478).
8-23
Sample Sample
1
2
Size
80
100 n
#Successes
60
65
x
Evidence
Hypothesis Testing
Pooled p-hat 0.6944
Null Hypothesis
H0: p1 - p2 = 0
8.56.
At an of
p-value
5%
0.1478
95% C.I. for the difference between the two population proportions:
( p 1 p 2 )
1.96
p 1 (1 p 1 ) p 2 (1 p 2 )
+
n1
n2
(.75)(.25) (.65)(.35)
= [0.0332, 0.2332]
+
80
100
Yes, 0 is in the C.I., as expected from the results of Problem 8-55.
= 0.10
8-57.
K:
L:
1.96
nK = 12
nL = 12
x K = 12.55 sK = .7342281
x L = 11.925 sL = .3078517
H0: K L = 0 H1: K L
12.55 11.925
t (22) =
11(.7342281) + 11(.3078517) 1
1 = 2.719
+
22
12 12
Reject H0. The critical points for t (22) at = .02 are 2.508. Critical points for t (22) at
are 2.819. So .01 < p-value < .02. The L-boat is probably faster.
8-24
= .01
Evidence
Sample1 Sample2
Size
12
12
n
Mean 12.55
11.925 x-bar
Std. Deviation 0.73423 0.30785 s

df
22
At an of
p-value
5%
0.0125
Reject
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
8.58.Do Problem 8-57 with the data being paired. The differences KL are:
0.2
n = 12
t (11) =
0.2 1.0 2.2 0.2

D = .625 sD = .7723929
1.0
.625 0
.7723929 / 12
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.2
0.6
1.2
= 2.803
2.718 < 2.803 < 3.106 (between the critical points of t (11) for = .01 and .02).
Hence, .01 < p-value < .02, which is as before, in Problem 8-57 (the pairing did not help much
herewe reach the same conclusion).
Evidence
Size
12
Assumption
Populations Normal

df 11
Hypothesis Testing
Null Hypothesis
p-value
H0: 1 2 = 0
0.0172
H0: 1 2 >= 0
0.9914
H0: 1 2 <= 0
0.0086
At an of
5%
Reject
Reject
8.59.(Use template: testing difference in proportions.xls)

H0: West South = 0
H1: West South 0
8-25

Sample Sample
1
2
Size 1000
1000 n
#Successes 49.5
67.9 x
Evidence
Hypothesis Testing
Pooled p-hat 0.0587
Test Statistic -1.7503 z
Null Hypothesis
H0: p1 - p2 = 0
p-value
0.0801
At an of
5%
Do not reject the null hypothesis: the delinquency rates are the same.
8-60.
IIT (1):
n1 = 100
1 = 0.94
p
Competitor (2):
n2 = 125
2 = 0.92
p
H0: p1 p2 = 0
H1: p1 p2
= .92888
.02
z=
1 = 0.58
1
(.9288)(1 .9288)
+
100 125
There is no evidence that one program is more successful than the other.
8-61.
Design (1):
n1 = 15
x1 = 2.17333 s1 = .3750555
Design (2):
n2 = 13
x 2 = 2.5153846 s2 = .3508232
H0: 2 1 = 0
H1: 2 1
2.5153846 2.173333
t (26) =
14(.3750555) + 12(.3508232) 1
1 = 2.479
+
26
15 13
p-value = .02. Reject H0. Design 1 is probably faster.

8-62.
H0: 12 = 22 H1: 12 22
F (14,12) = s12/ s22 = (.3750555)2/(.3508232)2 = 1.143
8-26
Do not reject H0 at = 0.10. (Since 1.143 < 2.62. Also < 2.10, so the p-value > 0.20.) The
solution of Problem 8-61 is valid from the equal-variance requirement.
8-63.
A = After:
nA = 16
x A = 91.75
B = Before:
nB = 15
x B = 84.7333 sB = 5.3514573
H0: A B 5
sA = 5.0265959
H1: A B > 5
91.75 84.733 5
t (29) =
15(5.0265959) +14(5.3514573) 1
1 = 1.08
+
29
16 15
Do not reject H0. There is no evidence that advertising is effective.

8-64.
H0: 12 = 22 H1: 12 22
F (14,15) = (5.3514573)2/(5.0265959)2 = 1.133
Do not reject H0 at = 0.10. There is no evidence that the population variances are not equal.
Size
Sample 1 Sample 2
15
16
Variance 28.6381
25.26667

df1
14
df2
15
Null Hypothesis
H0: 21 - 22 = 0
H0: 21 - 22 >= 0
H0: 21 - 22 <= 0
8.65.
p-value
0.8100
0.5950
0.4050
From problem 8-48:

sL = 8500
sK = 9100
2
2
H0: L = K
H1: L2
Evidence
At an of
10%
2
K
Sample1 Sample2
Size 200
Mean 10402
Std. Deviation 8500
200 n
11359 x-bar
9100 s
8-27
Assumptions
Populations Normal
F ratio 1.14616
p-value 0.3367
F = 1.146 p = 0.34
Do not reject the null hypothesis of equal variances.
8-66.
H0: K 2 = L 2 H1: K 2
L2
F (11,11) = (.7342281)2/(.3078517)2 = 5.688

Critical point for = 0.02 is about 4.5. Therefore, reject H0. Thus the analysis in Problem 8-57
is not valid. We need to use the other test. The other test also gives t = 2.719 but the df are
obtained using Equation (8-6):
2
( s1 / n1 + s2 / n2 ) 2
df =
( s12 / n1 ) ( s2 2 / n2 ) 2
n 1 + n 1
2
1
= approximately 14 (rounded downward).
t .02(14) = 2.624 < 2.719 < 2.977 = t .01(14), hence 0.01 < p-value < 0.02. Reject H0.
8.67.
Differences A B:
11 3 3 14 8 10 5 7
2 12
5 10 22 12
D = 2.375 sD = 9.7425185 n = 16
2.375 0
t (15) =
= 0.9751
9.7425185 / 16
H0: D = 0
H1: D
Do not reject H0. There is no evidence that one package is better liked than the other.
Evidence
Size
16
Average Difference -2.375 D
Assumption
Populations Normal

Test Statistic -0.9751
df 15
Hypothesis Testing
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
8-68.
t
At an of
5%
p-value
0.3450
0.1725
0.8275
Supplier A: nA = 200 xA = 12
Supplier B: nB = 250 xB = 38
H0: pA pB = 0
H1: pA pB 0
= (12 +38)/450 = .1111
8-28
p A p B 0
.06 .152
1
1 = 3.086
1 =
1
(.1111)(.8888)
+
p (1 p ) +
200 250
n1 n 2
Reject H0. p-value = .002. Supplier A is probably more reliable as the proportion of defective
components is lower.
z=
8.69.95% C.I. for the difference in the proportion of defective items for the two suppliers:
( p B p A )
=.092
1.96
p A (1 p A ) p B (1 p B )
+
nA
nB
1.96(.0282415) = [0.0366, 0.1474].
Confidence Interval
1
95%
8-70.
Confidence Interval
0.0920 0.0554
= [
0.0366 , 0.1474 ]
90% C.I. for the difference in average occupancy rate at the Westin Plaza Hotel before and after
the advertising:
( xB x A )
1.699
15(5.0265959) +14(5.3514573) 1
1
+
29
15
16
= 7.016667 3.1666375 = [3.85, 10.18] percent occupancy.

8-71.

H0: B O = 0
H1: B O 0
Evidence
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
25
60
14
20
65
8
n
x-bar
s
Assumption of equal variances is violated.

df
39
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
p-value
0.1404
0.0702
0.9298
At an of
5%
8-29
Assumptions
Populations Normal
F ratio 3.0625
p-value 0.0155
Do not reject the null hypothesis. The price of the two virtual dolls is about the same.
8-72.

H0: A B = 0
H1: A B 0
Evidence
Assumptions
Populations Normal
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
74
28
6
65
22
6
n
x-bar
s

F ratio
1
p-value 1.0000

df 137
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
p-value
0.0000
At an of
5%
Reject
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
1.0000
0.0000
Reject
Reject the null hypothesis: the average returns are similar.

8-73.
(Use template: testing difference in means.xls; sheet:t-test from stats)

H0: 2 1 = 0
H1: 2 1 0
Evidence
Assumptions
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
74
50
20
65
14
8
The assumption of equal variances is violated.
8-30
Populations Normal
n
x-bar
s

F ratio 6.25
p-value 0.0000

df
98
At an of Means
p-value
5%
0.0000
Reject
95%
36 5.01643 = [ 30.9836, 41.0164 ]
1.0000
0.0000
Reject
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
The 95% CI: [$30.98M, $41.02M]

8-74.
a.
n1 = 2500 x1 = 39
s1 = s2 = 2
H0: u1 = u2
z=
= .05
H1: u1 u2
39 35
n 2 = 2500 x 2 = 35
2 / 2500 + 2 / 2500
= 70.711
Reject H0. The average workweek has shortened.

b. 95% C.I.: (39 35) 1.96
2 / 2500 + 2 / 2500
= 4 .1109 = [3.8891, 4.1109]
8-75.
(Use template: testing difference in means.xls; sheet:t-test from stats)

H0: 2 1 = 0
H1: 2 1 0
Evidence
Assumptions
Sample1 Sample2
Size
Mean
Std. Deviation
25
1.7
0.4
25
1.5
0.7
Populations Normal
n
x-bar
s

F ratio 3.0625
p-value 0.0081
The assumption of equal variances is violated.

Assuming Population Variances are
Unequal
df
38
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
p-value
0.2225
At an of
5%
Do not reject the null hypothesis. The mean catches are about the same. p-value = 0.2225
8-31
8-76.
Yes. Lower income households are less likely to have internet access. (p-value = 0.0038)
Evidence
Size
#Successes
Proportion
Sample 1
500
350
0.7000
Sample 2
500
n
310
x
0.6200 p-hat
Hypothesis Testing
Pooled p-hat
Test Statistic
0.6600
2.6702
Null Hypothesis
H0: p1 - p2 = 0
H0: p1 - p2 >= 0
H0: p1 - p2 <= 0
p-value
0.0076
0.9962
0.0038
At an of
5%
Reject
Reject
8.77.The 95% C.I. contains 0, which supports the results from 8-75.
Confidence
1
Interval
95%
0.2 0.32642
= [
-0.1264, 0.52642 ]
8-78
The ration of the variances is 3.18. The degrees of freedom for both samples is 10 1 = 9. Using
the F-table for 9 degrees of freedom in both the numerator and the denominator, we find a value of
3.18 when = 0.05. Therefore, there is a 5% chance.
8-79
(Use template: testing difference in means.xls; sheet:t-test from data)

1. Assuming equal variances:
H0: 2 1 = 0
H1: 2 1 0
8-32

Data
Co.1
Co.2
Sample1 Sample2
2570
2480
2870
2975
2055
2940
2850
2475
2660
1940
2380
2590
2550
2485
2585
2710
2100
2655
1950
2115
Evidence:
Sample1 Sample2
Size
11
9
n
Mean 2623.18 2342.22 x-bar

df
18
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
p-value
0.0467
At an of
5%
Reject
0.9766
0.0234
Reject
At 0.05 level of significance, reject the null hypothesis that the charges are the same.
2. Test the assumption of equal variances.
H 0 : 12 = 22
H1 : 12 22
Assumptions
Populations Normal
F ratio 5.11054
p-value 0.0193
Reject null hypothesis: the variances are not equal.

3.Assuming unequal variances,
H0: 2 1 = 0
H1: 2 1 0
8-33

df
10
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 = 0
H0: 1 2 >= 0
H0: 1 2 <= 0
p-value
0.0748
0.9626
0.0374
At an of
5%
Reject
Accept the null hypothesis: the charges are not different.

Case 10: Tiresome Tires II
1) Do not reject the null hypothesis at 5%
Evidence
Assumptions
Populations Normal
Sample1Sample2
Size 40
40 n
Mean 2742.5 2729.35 x-bar

F ratio
1.16512
p-value
0.6356

df 78
Null Hypothesis
H0: 1 2 <= 0
At an
of
p-value
5%

Means
1
Confidence Interval
95%
13.15 15.8956
0.0518
2) Increasing would decrease . Increasing to any value above 5.18% will cause the null hypothesis
to be rejected.
3) Paired difference test: Reject the null hypothesis, (p-value = 0.0471)
8-34

Data
Old Meth New Meth Evidence
Sample1 Sample2
Size
40
Assumption
13.15
Populations Normal
2792
2713 Average Difference
2
3
4
5
2755
2745
2731
2799
2741 Stdev. of Difference

2701
2731
Test Statistic
2747
df
6
7
8
9
10
11
2793
2705
2729
2747
2725
2715
2773
Null Hypothesis
2676
2677
H0: 1 2 <= 0
2721
2742
48.4877 sD
1.7152
39

Sample1 - Sample2
p-value
At an
of
5%
0.0471
Reject
4) Reducing the variance of the new process will decrease the chances of a Type I error.
8-35

Chap 008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chap 008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

THE COMPARISON OF TWO POPULATIONS

Paired Difference Test

Average Difference 19.08 D

Stdev. of Difference 30.67 sD

Strongly reject H0. 95% C.I. for D

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

(template: Testing Paired Difference.xls, sheet: Sample Data)

= 0.05, we cannot reject H0.

Paired Difference Test

Test Statistic 1.5492 t

H0: D 0 H1: D > 0

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

There is no evidence that the shelf facings are effective.

Paired Difference Test

Average Difference 37.0833 D

= P(Z > 1.551) = 0.0604

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

Do not reject H0; no evidence of a difference.

Average Difference 1.25 D

Stdev. of Difference 42.89 sD

n1 = 100 n 2 = 100 x1 = 76.5 x 2 = 88.1

(Template: Testing Population Means.xls, sheet: Z-test from Stats)

H0: Population Variances Equal

Assuming Population Variances are Equal

At an of Confidence Interval for difference in Population Means

Reject H0. There is evidence that gasoline outperforms ethanol.

Nikon (1): x1 = 8.5

Minolta (2): x 2 = 7.8 s 2 = 1.8

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

( 2.1 / 30) + (1.8 / 30)

Bel Air (1):

(Template: Testing Population Means.xls, sheet: t-test from Stats)

H0: Population Variances Equal

Assuming Population Variances are Equal

Pooled Variance 0.47609 s2p

Confidence Interval for difference in Population Means

Assuming Population Variances are Unequal

Confidence Interval for difference in Population Means

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

(Template: Testing Population Means.xls, sheet: t-test from Stats)

t-Test for Difference in Population Means

H0: Population Variances Equal

Assuming Population Variances are Equal

At an of Confidence Interval for difference in Population Means

(12.2 / 128) + (10.5 2 / 212)

Reject H0. Music is probably more effective.

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

1) 7.622 2 + (13 1) 4.292 2

a. one-tailed: H0: 1 2 0 H1: 1 2 > 0

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

(10 1)1002.5 2 + (11 1)876.05 2

(Template: Testing Population Means.xls, sheet: t-test from Stats)

H0: Population Variances Equal

Assuming Population Variances are Equal

At an of Confidence Interval for difference in Population Means

= [2.416, 2.664] percent.

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations

Assuming Population Variances are Equal

With training (1):

Without training (2): n 2 = 15

4,000 H1: 1 2 > 4,000

(Use template: testing difference in means.xls)

Chapter 08 - The Comparison of Two Populations