/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 57 "Mountain Biking May Reduce Fert... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Log out

Learning Materials

Features

Discover

Chapter 11: Problem 57

"Mountain Biking May Reduce Fertility in Men, Study Says" was the headline of an article appearing in the San Luis Obispo Tribune (December 3,2002 ). This conclusion was based on an Austrian study that compared sperm counts of avid mountain bikers (those who ride at least 12 hours per week) and nonbikers. Ninety percent of the avid mountain bikers studied had low sperm counts, as compared to \(26 \%\) of the nonbikers. Suppose that these percentages were based on independent samples of 100 avid mountain bikers and 100 nonbikers and that it is reasonable to view these samples as representative of Austrian avid mountain bikers and nonbikers. a. Do these data provide convincing evidence that the proportion of Austrian avid mountain bikers with low sperm count is higher than the proportion of Austrian nonbikers? b. Based on the outcome of the test in Part (a), is it reasonable to conclude that mountain biking 12 hours per week or more causes low sperm count? Explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Yes, if the p-value is less than the significance level, it provides convincing evidence that the proportion of low sperm count is higher in Austrian avid mountain bikers than in Austrian non-bikers. However, a significant test doesn't establish a causality, it just shows an association.

Step by step solution

01

Defining the Null and Alternative Hypotheses

Define the null hypothesis (\(H_0\)) as there is no difference in the proportion of low sperm counts between avid mountain bikers (\(p_1\)) and nonbikers (\(p_2\)): \(H_0: p_1 - p_2 = 0\). The alternative hypothesis (\(H_A\)) is that the proportion of low sperm counts is higher for bikers: \(H_A: p_1 - p_2 > 0\).
02

Calculating the Test Statistic

First, calculate the pooled proportion (\(p\)) as the total number of successes (low sperm counts) divided by the total number of trials (total number of bikers and nonbikers). Then, calculate the standard error (\(SE\)) using the formula \(SE = \sqrt{p(1 - p)(1/n_1 + 1/n_2)}\). Finally, calculate the test statistic (\(Z\)) as the observed difference between the sample proportions minus the difference under the null hypothesis, divided by the standard error, that is, \(Z = (p_1 - p_2 - 0) / SE\).
03

Finding the P-Value

The p-value is the probability of observing a test statistic as extreme as the one calculated under the null hypothesis. In this case, as the alternative hypothesis is greater than type, use a Z table/ standard normal distribution table or software to find the probability greater than the calculated Z score which is the p-value.
04

Conclusion

If the p-value is less than the chosen significance level (generally 0.05), then reject the null hypothesis and conclude that there is convincing evidence that the proportion of Austrian avid mountain bikers with low sperm count is significantly higher than the proportion of Austrian non bikers.
05

Interpretation

Even if the test in part (a) is significant, it doesn't establish a causal relationship. It simply reveals an association between mountain biking and low sperm count, which might be due to confounding factors.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91影视!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The article "The Sorority Rush Process: SelfSelection, Acceptance Criteria, and the Effect of Rejection" (Journal of College Student Development [1994]: \(346-353\) ) reported on a study of factors associated with the decision to rush a sorority. Fifty-four women who rushed a sorority and 51 women who did not were asked how often they drank alcoholic beverages. For the sorority rush group, the mean was \(2.72\) drinks per week and the standard deviation .86. For the group who did not rush, the mean was \(2.11\) and the standard deviation \(1.02 .\) Is there evidence to support the claim that those who rush a sorority drink more than those who do not rush? Test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha=.01\). What assumptions are required in order for the two-sample \(t\) test to be appropriate?

An electronic implant that stimulates the auditory nerve has been used to restore partial hearing to a number of deaf people. In a study of implant acceptability (Los Angeles Times, January 29,1985 ), 250 adults born deaf and 250 adults who went deaf after learning to speak were followed for a period of time after receiving an implant. Of those deaf from birth, 75 had removed the implant, whereas only 25 of those who went deaf after learning to speak had done so. Does this suggest that the true proportion who remove the implants differs for those that were born deaf and those that went deaf after learning to speak? Test the relevant hypotheses using a .01 significance level.

Are very young infants more likely to imitate actions that are modeled by a person or simulated by an object? This question was the basis of a research study summarized in the article "The Role of Person and Object in Eliciting Early Imitation" (Journal of Experimental Child Psychology [1991]: 423-433). One action examined was mouth opening. This action was modeled repeatedly by either a person or a doll, and the number of times that the infant imitated the behavior was recorded. Twentyseven infants participated, with 12 exposed to a human model and 15 exposed to the doll. Summary values are given here. Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the mean number of imitations is higher for infants who watch a human model than for infants who watch a doll? Test the relevant hypotheses using a .01 significance level.

The article "A 'White' Name Found to Help in Job Search" (Associated Press, January 15,2003 ) described in experiment to investigate if it helps to have a "whitesounding" first name when looking for a job. Researchers sent 5000 resumes in response to ads that appeared in the Boston Globe and Chicago Tribune. The resumes were identical except that 2500 of them had "white- sounding" first names, such as Brett and Emily, whereas the other 2500 had "black-sounding" names such as Tamika and Rasheed. Resumes of the first type elicited 250 responses and resumes of the second type only 167 responses. Do these data support the theory that the proportion receiving positive responses is higher for those resumes with "whitesounding first" names?

Consider two populations for which \(\mu_{1}=30, \sigma_{1}=2\), \(\mu_{2}=25\), and \(\sigma_{2}=3\). Suppose that two independent random samples of sizes \(n_{1}=40\) and \(n_{2}=50\) are selected. Describe the approximate sampling distribution of \(\bar{x}_{1}-\bar{x}_{2}\) (center, spread, and shape).
See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

Logic and Functions

Read Explanation

Mechanics Maths

Read Explanation

Probability and Statistics

Read Explanation

Geometry

Read Explanation

Calculus

Read Explanation

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

Read Explanation
View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.