/*! 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} Q30 E The article "Flexure of Concrete... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

The article "Flexure of Concrete Beams Reinforced with Advanced Composite Orthogrids"\((J\). of Aerospace Engr., 1997: 7-15) gave the accompanying data on ultimate load\((kN)\)for two different types of beams.

\( - 7.0944\)

a. Assuming that the underlying distributions are normal, calculate and interpret a\(99\% \)CI for the difference between true average load for the fiberglass beams and that for the carbon beams.

b. Does the upper limit of the interval you calculated in part (a) give a\(99\% \)upper confidence bound for the difference between the two\(\mu \)'s? If not, calculate such a bound. Does it strongly suggest that true average load for the carbon beams is more than that for the fiberglass beams? Explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified

(a) \(( - 11.9756, - 6.8244)\)

We are \(99\% \)confident that the difference between the true average load for the fiberglass beams and that for the carbon beams is between \( - 11.9756\) and \( - 6.8244.\)

(b) upper confidence bound: \( - 7.0944\)

There is sufficient evidence that the true average load for the carbon beams is more than that for the fiberglass beams.

Step by step solution

01

a)Step 1: Find the endpoint of confident interval

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\bar x}_1} = 33.4\\{{\bar x}_2} = 42.8\\{n_1} = 26\\{n_2} = 26\\{s_1} = 2.2\\{s_2} = 4.3\\c = 99\% = 0.99\end{array}\)

Determine the degrees of freedom (rounded down to the nearest integer):

\(\Delta = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/{n_1}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_1} - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/{n_2}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_2} - 1}}}} = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{{{2.2}^2}}}{{26}} + \frac{{{{4.3}^2}}}{{26}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {{{2.2}^2}/26} \right)}^2}}}{{26 - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {{{4.3}^2}/26} \right)}^2}}}{{26 - 1}}}} \approx 37 > 36\)

Determine the\(t\)-value by looking in the row starting with degrees of freedom\(df = 36\)and in the column with\(1 - c/2 = 0.005\)in the Student's\(t\)distribution table in the appendix:

\({t_{\alpha /2}} = 2.719\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} = 2.719 \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{{{2.2}^2}}}{{26}} + \frac{{{{4.3}^2}}}{{26}}} \approx 2.5756\)

The endpoints of the confidence interval for\({\mu _1} - {\mu _2}\)are:

\(\begin{array}{l}\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) - E = (33.4 - 42.8) - 2.5756 = - 9.4 - 2.5756 = - 11.9756\\\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) + E = (33.4 - 42.8) + 2.5756 = - 9.4 + 2.5756 = - 6.8244\end{array}\)

We are \(99\% \)confident that the difference between the true average load for the fiberglass beams and that for the carbon beams is between \( - 11.9756\) and \( - 6.8244\)

02

b)Step 2: Find the upper confidence bound of the confidence interval

The upper confidence bound from part (a) is a \(99.5\% \) confidence bound instead of a \(99\% \) confidence bound.

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\bar x}_1} = 33.4\\{{\bar x}_2} = 42.8\\{n_1} = 26\\{n_2} = 26\\{s_1} = 2.2\\{s_2} = 4.3\\c = 99\% = 0.99\end{array}\)

Determine the degrees of freedom (rounded down to the nearest integer):

\(\Delta = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/{n_1}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_1} - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/{n_2}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_2} - 1}}}} = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{{{2.2}^2}}}{{26}} + \frac{{{{4.3}^2}}}{{26}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {{{2.2}^2}/26} \right)}^2}}}{{26 - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {{{4.3}^2}/26} \right)}^2}}}{{26 - 1}}}} \approx 37 > 36\)

Determine the t-value by looking in the row starting with degrees of freedom \(df = 36\) and in the column with \(1 - c = 0.01\)in the Student's \(t\) distribution table in the appendix: \({t_{\alpha /2}} = 2.434\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} = 2.434 \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{{{2.2}^2}}}{{26}} + \frac{{{{4.3}^2}}}{{26}}} \approx 2.3056\)

The upper confidence bound of the confidence interval for \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2}\) is then:

\(\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) + E = (33.4 - 42.8) + 2.3056 = - 9.4 + 2.3056 = - 7.0944\)

There is sufficient evidence that the true average load for the carbon beams is more than that for the fiberglass beams, because the upper confidence bound is smaller than \(0.\)

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

An experiment was performed to compare the fracture toughness of high-purity \(18Ni\) maraging steel with commercial-purity steel of the same type (Corrosion Science, 1971: 723–736). For \(m = 32\)specimens, the sample average toughness was \(\overline x = 65.6\) for the high purity steel, whereas for \(n = 38\)specimens of commercial steel \(\overline y = 59.8\). Because the high-purity steel is more expensive, its use for a certain application can be justified only if its fracture toughness exceeds that of commercial purity steel by more than 5. Suppose that both toughness distributions are normal.

a. Assuming that \({\sigma _1} = 1.2\) and \({\sigma _2} = 1.1\), test the relevant hypotheses using \(\alpha = .001\).

b. Compute \(\beta \) for the test conducted in part (a) when \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 6.\)

It is well known that a placebo, a fake medication or treatment, can sometimes have a positive effect just because patients often expect the medication or treatment to be helpful. The article "Beware the Nocebo Effect" (New York Times, Aug. 12, 2012) gave examples of a less familiar phenomenon, the tendency for patients informed of possible side effects to actually experience those side effects. The article cited a study reported in The Journal of Sexual Medicine in which a group of patients diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia was randomly divided into two subgroups. One subgroup of size 55 received a compound of proven efficacy along with counseling that a potential side effect of the treatment was erectile dysfunction. The other subgroup of size 52 was given the same treatment without counseling. The percentage of the no-counseling subgroup that reported one or more sexual side effects was 15.3 %, whereas 43.6 % of the counseling subgroup reported at least one sexual side effect. State and test the appropriate hypotheses at significance level .05 to decide whether the nocebo effect is operating here. (Note: The estimated expected number of "successes" in the no-counseling sample is a bit shy of 10, but not by enough to be of great concern (some sources use a less conservative cutoff of 5 rather than 10).)

The article "Evaluating Variability in Filling Operations" (Food Tech., 1984: 51-55) describes two different filling operations used in a ground-beef packing plant. Both filling operations were set to fill packages with \(1400\;g\)of ground beef. In a random sample of size 30 taken from each filling operation, the resulting means and standard deviations were \(1402.24\;g\) and \(10.97\;g\) for operation 1 and \(1419.63\;g\) and \(9.96\;g\) for operation 2.

a. Using a .05 significance level, is there sufficient evidence to indicate that the true mean weight of the packages differs for the two operations?

b. Does the data from operation 1 suggest that the true mean weight of packages produced by operation 1 is higher than\(1400\;g\)? Use a \(.05\)significance level.

The article "Quantitative MRI and Electrophysiology of Preoperative Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in a Female Population" (Ergonomics, 1997: 642-649) reported that (-473.13,1691.9) was a large-sample 95 % confidence interval for the difference between true average thenar muscle volume \(\left( {m{m^3}} \right.)\) for sufferers of carpal tunnel syndrome and true average volume for nonsufferers. Calculate and interpret a 90 % confidence interval for this difference.

The National Health Statistics Reports dated Oct. \(22,2008\), included the following information on the heights (in.) for non-Hispanic white females:

Sample sample Std. Error

Age Size Mean Mean

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{20 - 39}&{866}&{64.9}&{.09}\\{60 and older }&{934}&{63.1}&{.11}\\{}&{}&{}&{}\end{array}\)

  1. Calculate and interpret a confidence interval at confidence level approximately \(95\% \) for the difference between population mean height for the younger women and that for the older women.
  2. Let \({\mu _1}\) denote the population mean height for those aged \(20 - 39\) and \({\mu _2}\) denote the population mean height for those aged 60 and older. Interpret the hypotheses \({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 1 and {H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} > 1,\) and then carry out a test of these hypotheses at significance level \(.001\)
  3. Based on the \(p\)-value calculated in (b) would you reject the null hypothesis at any reasonable significance level? Explain your reasoning.
  4. What hypotheses would be appropriate if \({\mu _1}\) referred to the older age group, \({\mu _2}\) to the younger age group, and you wanted to see if there was compelling evidence for concluding that the population mean height for younger women exceeded that for older women by more than \(1\)in.?
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.