/*! 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} Q29 E The article "Effect of Internal ... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

The article "Effect of Internal Gas Pressure on the Compression Strength of Beverage Cans and Plastic Bottles" (J. of Testing and Evaluation, \(1993: 129 - 131\)) includes the accompanying data on compression strength (lb) for a sample of\(12 - oz\)aluminum cans filled with strawberry drink and another sample filled with cola. Does the data suggest that the extra carbonation of cola results in a higher average compression strength? Base your answer on a\(P\)-value. What assumptions are necessary for your analysis?

\(\begin{array}{l}BeverageSampleSizeSampleMeanSampleSD\\Strawberrydrink1554021\\Cola1555415\end{array}\)

Short Answer

Expert verified

Assumption of normality;

Reject null hypothesis.

Step by step solution

01

Find the normal distribution

Denote with\({\mu _1}\)the true average compression strength (lb) for srawberry drink and with\({\mu _2}\)for cola drink. The hypotheses of interest are\({H_0}:{\mu _1} - \)\({\mu _2} = 0\)versus\({H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} < 0\). The answer should be based on the\(P\)value.

Given two normal distributions, the random variable (standardized)

\(T = \frac{{\bar X - \bar Y - \left( {{\mu _1} - {\mu _2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{S_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{S_2^2}}{n}} }}\)

has approximately students\(t\)distribution with degrees of freedom\(\nu \), where\(\nu \)is

\(\nu = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/m} \right)}^2}}}{{m - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/n} \right)}^2}}}{{n - 1}}}}\)

has to be rounded down to the nearest integer.

The two-sample\(t\)test for testing\({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = {\Delta _0}\)uses the following value of test statistic

\(t = \frac{{\bar x - \bar y - {\Delta _0}}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} }}\)

For the adequate alternative hypothesis the adequate area under the \({t_\nu }\) curve is calculated is the \(P\) value.

02

Find the lower tailed test

In order to use this statistic the assumption of normally had to be made. There is enough information to calculate the \(t\) value as

\(\begin{array}{l}t = \frac{{\bar x - \bar y - {\Delta _0}}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} }} = \frac{{540 - 554}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{{{21}^2}}}{{15}}} + \frac{{{{15}^2}}}{{15}}}} = \frac{{ - 14}}{{\sqrt {29.4 + 15} }}\\ = - 2.1\end{array}\)

and the corresponding degrees of freedom of the statistic can be computed using formula given above

\(\nu = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/m} \right)}^2}}}{{m - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/n} \right)}^2}}}{{n - 1}}}} = \frac{{{{44.4}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{29.4}^2}}}{{14}} + \frac{{{{15}^2}}}{{14}}}} = \frac{{1971.36}}{{77.81}} = 25.36\)

and round down to the nearest integer to get the degrees of freedom

\(\nu = 25\)

The \(P\) value for the lower tailed test is the probability

\(P = P(T < 2.1) = 0.023\)

where the value can be found in the appendix of the book and statistic \(T\) is students statistic with \(25\) degrees of freedom. Since

\(P = 0.023 < 0.05\)

reject the null hypothesis

From the data you can conclude that extra corbonation of cola results in a higher average compression strength with significance level \(\alpha = 0.05\$ .\)

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 91Ó°ÊÓ!

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

Suppose \({\mu _1}\) and \({\mu _2}\) are true mean stopping distances at \(50mph\) for cars of a certain type equipped with two different types of braking systems. Use the two-sample t test at significance level

t test at significance level \(.01\) to test \({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = - 10\) versus \({H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} < - 10\) for the following data: \(m = 6,\;\;\;\bar x = 115.7,{s_1} = 5.03,n = 6,\bar y = 129.3,\;\)and \({s_2} = 5.38.\)

Refer to Example 9.7. Does the data suggest that the standard deviation of the strength distribution for fused specimens is smaller than that for not-fused specimens? Carry out a test at significance level .01.

Scientists and engineers frequently wish to compare two different techniques for measuring or determining the value of a variable. In such situations, interest centers on testing whether the mean difference in measurements is zero. The article "Evaluation of the Deuterium Dilution Technique Against the Test Weighing Procedure for the Determination of Breast Milk Intake" (Amer: J. of Clinical Nutr., \(1983: 996 - 1003\)) reports the accompanying data on amount of milk ingested by each of\(14\)randomly selected infants.

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;Infant\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;}\\{\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;1\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;2\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;3\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;4\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;5}\\{D method\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;1509\;\;\;\;\;1418\;\;\;\;\;1561\;\;\;\;\;1556\;\;\;\;\;2169}\\{W method\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;1498\;\;\;\;\;1254\;\;\;\;\;1336\;\;\;\;\;1565\;\;\;\;\;2000}\\{jifference\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;11\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;164\;\;\;\;\;\;\;225\;\;\;\;\;\;\; - 9\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;169}\end{array}\)

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{}&{Infant}&{}&{}&{}&{}\\{}&6&7&8&9&{10}\\{DD method}&{1760}&{1098}&{1198}&{1479}&{1281}\\{TW method}&{1318}&{1410}&{1129}&{1342}&{1124}\\{Difference}&{442}&{ - 312}&{69}&{137}&{157}\end{array}\)

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{}&{Infant}&{}&{}&{}\\{}&{11}&{12}&{13}&{14}\\{DD method}&{1414}&{1954}&{2174}&{2058}\\{TW method}&{1468}&{1604}&{1722}&{1518}\\{Difference}&{ - 54}&{350}&{452}&{540}\end{array}\)

a. Is it plausible that the population distribution of differences is normal?

b. Does it appear that the true average difference between intake values measured by the two methods is something other than zero? Determine the\(P\)-value of the test, and use it to reach a conclusion at significance level . \(05\).

The article "Enhancement of Compressive Properties of Failed Concrete Cylinders with Polymer Impregnation" (J. of Testing and Evaluation, 1977: 333-337) reports the following data on impregnated compressive modulus (\(psi\)\( \times 1{0^6}\)) when two different polymers were used to repair cracks in failed concrete.

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{ Epoxy }&{1.75}&{2.12}&{2.05}&{1.97}\\{ MMA prepolymer }&{1.77}&{1.59}&{1.70}&{1.69}\end{array}\)

Obtain a \(90\% \) CI for the ratio of variances by first using the method suggested in the text to obtain a general confidence interval formula.

Shoveling is not exactly a high-tech activity, but it will continue to be a required task even in our information age. The article "A Shovel with a Perforated Blade Reduces Energy Expenditure Required for Digging Wet Clay" (Human Factors, 2010: 492-502) reported on an experiment in which 13 workers were each provided with both a conventional shovel and a shovel whose blade was perforated with small holes. The authors of the cited article provided the following data on stable energy expenditure ((kcal/kg(subject)//b(clay)):

Worker : 1 2 3 4

Conventional : .0011 .0014 .0018 .0022

Perforated : .0011 .0010 .0019 .0013

Worker: 5 6 7

Conventional : .0010 .0016 .0028

Perforated : .0011 .0017 .0024

Worker 8 9 10

Conventional : .0020 .0015 .0014

Perforated : .0020 .0013 .0013

Worker: 11 12 13

Conventional : .0023 .0017 .0020

Perforated : .0017 .0015 .0013

a. Calculate a confidence interval at the 95 % confidence level for the true average difference between energy expenditure for the conventional shovel and the perforated shovel (the relevant normal probability plot shows a reasonably linear pattern). Based on this interval, does it appear that the shovels differ with respect to true average energy expenditure? Explain.

b. Carry out a test of hypotheses at significance level .05 to see if true average energy expenditure using the conventional shovel exceeds that using the perforated shovel.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

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.