/*! 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} Q46 E Example聽\(7.11\)聽gave data on ... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Example\(7.11\)gave data on the modulus of elasticity obtained\(1\)minute after loading in a certain configuration. The cited article also gave the values of modulus of elasticity obtained\(4\)weeks after loading for the same lumber specimens. The data is presented here. \(1\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{Observation}&{1 min}&{4 weeks}&{Difference}\\1&{10,490}&{9,110}&{1380}\\2&{16,620}&{13,250}&{3370}\\3&{17,300}&{14,720}&{2580}\\4&{15,480}&{12,740}&{2740}\\5&{12,970}&{10,120}&{2850}\\6&{17,260}&{14,570}&{2690}\\7&{13,400}&{11,220}&{2180}\\8&{13,900}&{11,100}&{2800}\\9&{13,630}&{11,420}&{2210}\\{10}&{13,260}&{10,910}&{2350}\\{11}&{14,370}&{12,110}&{2260}\\{12}&{11,700}&{8,620}&{3080}\\{13}&{15,470}&{12,590}&{2880}\\{14}&{17,840}&{15,090}&{2750}\\{15}&{14,070}&{10,550}&{3520}\\{16}&{14,760}&{12,230}&{2530}\end{array}\)

Calculate and interpret an upper confidence bound for the true average difference between\(1\)-minute modulus and\(4\)-week modulus; first check the plausibility of any necessary assumptions.

Short Answer

Expert verified

\(95\% \)upper confidence bound: \(2858.5386\)

Step by step solution

01

Determine the upper confidence bound

Given:

\(n = 16\)

I will calculate a\(95\% \)upper confidence bound. Other confidence bounds can be obtained similarly.

\(c = 95\% = 0.95\)Determine the sample mean of the differences. The mean is the sum of all values divided by the number of values.

\(\bar d = \frac{{1380 + 3370 + 2580 + \ldots + 2750 + 3520 + 2530}}{{16}} \approx 2635.625\)

Determine the sample standard deviation of the differences:

\({s_d} = \sqrt {\frac{{{{(1380 - 2635.625)}^2} + \ldots + {{(2530 - 2635.625)}^2}}}{{16 - 1}}} \approx 508.6448\)

Determine the\({t_\alpha }\)using the Student's T distribution table in the appendix with\(df = n - 1 = 16 - 1 = 15\):

\({t_\alpha } = {t_{1 - c}} = {t_{0.05}} = 1.753\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \frac{{{s_d}}}{{\sqrt n }} = 1.753 \cdot \frac{{508.6448}}{{\sqrt {16} }} \approx 222.9136\)

The upper confidence bound for\({\mu _d}\)is then:

\(\bar d + E = 2635.625 + 222.9136 = 2858.5386\)

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

As the population ages, there is increasing concern about accident-related injuries to the elderly. The article "Age and Gender Differences in Single-Step Recovery from a Forward Fall" (J. of Gerontology, \(1999: M44 - M50\)) reported on an experiment in which the maximum lean angle-the farthest a subject is able to lean and still recover in one step-was determined for both a sample of younger females (\(21 - 29\)years) and a sample of older females (\(67 - 81\)years). The following observations are consistent with summary data given in the article:

YF:\(29,34,33,27,28,32,31,34,32,27\)

OF:\(18,15,23,13,12\)

Does the data suggest that true average maximum lean angle for older females is more than\(10\)degrees smaller than it is for younger females? State and test the relevant hypotheses at significance level . \(10\).

1. An article in the November \(1983\) Consumer Reports compared various types of batteries. The average lifetimes of Duracell Alkaline \(AA\)batteries and Eveready Energizer Alkaline \(AA\) batteries were given as \(4.1\) hours and \(4.5\) hours, respectively. Suppose these are the population average lifetimes.

a. Let \(\bar X\) be the sample average lifetime of \(100\) Duracell batteries and \(\bar Y\) be the sample average lifetime of \(100\) Eveready batteries. What is the mean value of \(\bar X - \bar Y\) (i.e., where is the distribution of \({\bf{\bar X - \bar Y}}\) centered)? How does your answer depend on the specified sample sizes?

b. Suppose the population standard deviations of lifetime are \(1.8\) hours for Duracell batteries and \(2.0\) hours for Eveready batteries. With the sample sizes given in part (a), what is the variance of the statistic \(\bar X - \bar Y\), and what is its standard deviation?

c. For the sample sizes given in part (a), draw a picture of the approximate distribution curve of \(\bar X - \bar Y\) (include a measurement scale on the horizontal axis). Would the shape of the curve necessarily be the same for sample sizes of \(10\) batteries of each type? Explain

Reliance on solid biomass fuel for cooking and heating exposes many children from developing countries to high levels of indoor air pollution. The article 鈥淒omestic Fuels, Indoor Air Pollution, and Children鈥檚 Health鈥 (Annals of the N.Y. Academy of Sciences, \(2008:209 - 217\)) presented information on various pulmonary characteristics in samples of children whose households in India used either biomass fuel or liquefied petroleum gas (\(LPG\)). For the \(755\) children in biomass households, the sample mean peak expiratory flow (a person鈥檚 maximum speed of expiration) was \(3.30L/s\), and the sample standard deviation was \(1.20\). For the \(750\) children whose households used liquefied petroleum gas, the sample mean \(PEF\) was \(4.25\) and the sample standard deviation was \(1.75\).

a. Calculate a confidence interval at the \(95\% \) confidence level for the population mean \(PEF\) for children in biomass households and then do likewise for children in \(LPG\) households. What is the simultaneous confidence level for the two intervals?

b. Carry out a test of hypotheses at significance level \(.01\) to decide whether true average \(PEF\) is lower for children in biomass households than it is for children in \(LPG\) households (the cited article included a P-value for this test)

c. \(FE{V_1}\), the forced expiratory volume in \(1\) second, is another measure of pulmonary function. The cited article reported that for the biomass households the sample mean FEV1 was \(2.3L/s\) and the sample standard deviation was \(.5L/s\). If this information is used to compute a \(95\% \) \(CI\) for population mean \(FE{V_1}\), would the simultaneous confidence level for this interval and the first interval calculated in (a) be the same as the simultaneous confidence level determined there? Explain

The accompanying summary data on total cholesterol level (mmol/l) was obtained from a sample of Asian postmenopausal women who were vegans and another sample of such women who were omnivores (鈥淰egetarianism, Bone Loss, and Vitamin D: A Longitudinal Study in Asian Vegans and Non-Vegans,鈥 European J. of Clinical Nutr., 2012: 75鈥82)

Diet sample sample sample

Size mean SD

\(\overline {\underline {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{ Vegan }&{88}&{5.10}&{1.07}\\{ Omnivore }&{93}&{5.55}&{1.10}\\{}&{}&{}&{}\end{array}} } \)

Calculate and interpret a \(99\% \) \(CI\) for the difference between population mean total cholesterol level for vegans and population mean total cholesterol level for omnivores (the cited article included a \(95\% \)\(CI\)). (Note: The article described a more sophisticated statistical analysis for investigating bone density loss taking into account other characteristics (鈥渃ovariates鈥) such as age, body weight, and various nutritional factors; the resulting CI included 0, suggesting no diet effect.

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).)

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.