/*! 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} Q53 E Olestra is a fat substitute appr... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Olestra is a fat substitute approved by the FDA for use in snack foods. Because there have been anecdotal reports of gastrointestinal problems associated with olestra consumption, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment was carried out to compare olestra potato chips to regular potato chips with respect to GI symptoms ("Gastrointestinal Symptoms Following Consumption of Olestra or Regular Triglyceride Potato Chips," J. of the Amer. Med. Assoc., 1998: 150-152). Among 529 individuals in the TG control group, 17.6 % experienced an adverse GI event, whereas among the 563 individuals in the olestra treatment group, 15.8 % experienced such an event.

a. Carry out a test of hypotheses at the 5 % significance level to decide whether the incidence rate of GI problems for those who consume olestra chips according to the experimental regimen differs from the incidence rate for the TG control treatment.

b. If the true percentages for the two treatments were 15 % and 20 %, respectively, what sample sizes

\((m = n\)) would be necessary to detect such a difference with probability 90?

Short Answer

Expert verified

(a) There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the incidence rate of Gl problems for those who consume olestra chips according to the experimental regimen differs from the incidence rate for the TG control group.

(b) \(n = 1211\)\(\)

Step by step solution

01

To determine the value of the test statistic

Given:

a)

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\hat p}_1} = 17.6\% = 0.176\\{n_1} = 529\\{{\hat p}_2} = 15.8\% = 0.158\\{n_2} = 563\\\alpha = 5\% = 0.05\end{array}\)

(a) Claim: \({p_1} \ne {p_2}\)

The claim is either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis states an equality. Since the null hypothesis is not the claim, the alternative hypothesis is the claim.

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_0}:{p_1} = {p_2}\\{H_a}:{p_1} \ne {p_2}\end{array}\)

The sample proportion is the number of successes divided by the sample size:

\(\begin{array}{l}{x_1} = {{\hat p}_1}{n_1} = 0.176(529) \approx 93\\{x_2} = {{\hat p}_2}{n_2} = 0.158(563) \approx 89\end{array}\)

\({\hat p_p} = \frac{{{x_1} + {x_2}}}{{{n_1} + {n_2}}} = \frac{{93 + 89}}{{529 + 563}} = \frac{1}{6} \approx 0.1667\)

The critical values are the values corresponding to a probability of \(0.025/0.975\) in table A.3:

\(z = \pm 1.96\)

The rejection region then contains all values below -1.96 and all values above 1.96.

Determine the value of the test statistic:

\(z = \frac{{{{\hat p}_1} - {{\hat p}_2}}}{{\sqrt {{{\hat p}_p}\left( {1 - {{\hat p}_p}} \right)} \sqrt {\frac{1}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{1}{{{n_2}}}} }} = \frac{{0.176 - 0.158}}{{\sqrt {0.1667(1 - 0.1667)} \sqrt {\frac{1}{{529}} + \frac{1}{{563}}} }} \approx 0.80\)

If the value of the test statistic is within the rejection region, then the null hypothesis is rejected:

\( - 1.96 < 0.80 < 1.96 \Rightarrow {\rm{ Fail to reject }}{H_0}\)

There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the incidence rate of Gl problems for those who consume olestra chips according to the experimental regimen differs from the incidence rate for the TG control group.

02

To find the n value for the given sample sizes

(b) Given: Sample sizes are equal.

\(\begin{array}{l}{p_1} = 15\% = 0.15\\{p_2} = 20\% = 0.20\\P\left( {{\rm{ Reject }}{H_0}\mid {H_0}{\rm{ false }}} \right) = 0.90\end{array}\)

\({q_1}\)is the complement of \({p_1}\)and \({q_2}\)is the complement of \({p_2}\).

\(\begin{array}{l}{q_1} = 1 - {p_1} = 1 - 0.15 = 0.85\\{q_2} = 1 - {p_2} = 1 - 0.20 = 0.80\end{array}\)

\(\beta \)is the probability of not rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis \({H_0}\)is false (use the complement rule):

\(\beta = 1 - P\left( {{\rm{ Reject }}{H_0}\mid {H_0}{\rm{ false }}} \right) = 1 - 0.90 = 0.10\)

The critical value of the significance level \(\alpha \) is the value corresponding to a probability of \(\alpha /2 = 0.025\) in table A.3:

\({z_{\alpha /2}} = 1.96\)

The critical value of the probability of a type II error \(\beta \) is the value corresponding to a probability of 0.10 in table A.3:

\({z_\beta } = 1.28\)

\(d\)is the difference in population means:

\(d = {p_1} - {p_2} = 0.15 - 0.20 = - 0.05\)

Formula sample size:

Fill in the known values and evaluate (round up!):\(n = {\frac{{1.96\sqrt {(0.15 + 0.20)(0.85 + 0.80)/2} + 1.28\sqrt {0.15(0.85) + 0.20(0.80)} }}{{{{( - 0.05)}^2}}}^2} \approx 1211\)\(\)\(\)

03

Final proof

(a) There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the incidence rate of Gl problems for those who consume olestra chips according to the experimental regimen differs from the incidence rate for the TG control group.

(b) \(n = 1211\)\(\)

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 鈥樷檈valuation of a ventilation strategy to prevent barotrauma in patients at high risk for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome鈥 (New Engl. J. of Med., \(1998:355 - 358)\) reported on an experiment in which \(120\) patients with similar clinical features were randomly divided into a control group and a treatment group, each consisting of \(60\) patients. The sample mean ICU stay (days) and sample standard deviation for the treatment group were \(19.9\) and\(39.1\), respectively, whereas these values for the control group were \(13.7\) and \(15.8\).

a) Calculate a point estimate for the difference between true average ICU stay for the treatment and control groups. Does this estimate suggest that there is a significant difference between true average stays under the two conditions?

b) Answer the question posed in part (a) by carrying out a formal test of hypotheses. Is the result different from what you conjectured in part (a)?

c)Does it appear that ICU stay for patients given the ventilation treatment is normally distributed? Explain your reasoning9. The article 鈥淓valuation of a Ventilation Strategy to Prevent Barotrauma in Patients at High Risk for

d)Estimate true average length of stay for patients given the ventilation treatment in a way that conveys information about precision and reliability

Sometimes experiments involving success or failure responses are run in a paired or before/after manner. Suppose that before a major policy speech by a political candidate, n individuals are selected and asked whether \((S)\)or not (F) they favor the candidate. Then after the speech the same n people are asked the same question. The responses can be entered in a table as follows:

Before

After

S

F

S

\({{\bf{X}}_{\bf{1}}}\)

\({{\bf{X}}_{\bf{2}}}\)

F

\({{\bf{X}}_{\bf{3}}}\)

\({{\bf{X}}_{\bf{4}}}\)

Where\({{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{\bf{ + }}{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{2}}}{\bf{ + }}{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{3}}}{\bf{ + }}{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{4}}}{\bf{ = n}}\). Let\({{\bf{p}}_{\bf{1}}}{\bf{,}}{{\bf{p}}_{\bf{2}}}{\bf{,}}{{\bf{p}}_{\bf{3}}}\), and \({p_4}\)denote the four cell probabilities, so that \({p_1} = P(S\) before and S after), and so on. We wish to test the hypothesis that the true proportion of supporters (S) after the speech has not increased against the alternative that it has increased.

a. State the two hypotheses of interest in terms of\({p_1},{p_2}\),\({p_3}\), and \({p_4}\).

b. Construct an estimator for the after/before difference in success probabilities

c. When n is large, it can be shown that the rv \(\left( {{{\bf{X}}_{\bf{i}}}{\bf{ - }}{{\bf{X}}_{\bf{j}}}} \right){\bf{/n}}\) has approximately a normal distribution with variance given by\(\left[ {{{\bf{p}}_{\bf{i}}}{\bf{ + }}{{\bf{p}}_{\bf{j}}}{\bf{ - }}{{\left( {{{\bf{p}}_{\bf{i}}}{\bf{ - }}{{\bf{p}}_{\bf{j}}}} \right)}^{\bf{2}}}} \right]{\bf{/n}}\). Use this to construct a test statistic with approximately a standard normal distribution when \({H_0}\)is true (the result is called McNemar's test).

d. If\({{\bf{x}}_{\bf{1}}}{\bf{ = 350,}}\;\;\;{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{2}}}{\bf{ = 150,}}\;\;\;{{\bf{x}}_{\bf{3}}}{\bf{ = 200}}\), and\({x_4} = 300\), what do you conclude?

Tensile-strength tests were carried out on two different grades of wire rod (鈥淔luidized Bed Patenting of Wire Rods,鈥 Wire J., June \(1977: 56 - 61)\), resulting in the accompanying data

Sample

Sample Mean Sample

Grade Size (kg/mm2 ) SD

\(\overline {\underline {\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{ AISI 1064}&{m = 129}&{\bar x = 107.6}&{{s_1} = 1.3}\\{ AISI 1078}&{n = 129}&{\bar y = 123.6}&{{s_2} = 2.0}\\{}&{}&{}&{}\end{array}} } \)

a. Does the data provide compelling evidence for concluding that true average strength for the \(1078\) grade exceeds that for the \(1064\) grade by more than \(10kg/m{m^2}\) ? Test the appropriate hypotheses using a significance level of \(.01\).

b. Estimate the difference between true average strengths for the two grades in a way that provides information about precision and reliability

Is there any systematic tendency for part-time college faculty to hold their students to different standards than do full-time faculty? The article 鈥淎re There Instructional Differences Between Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty?鈥 (College Teaching, \(2009: 23 - 26)\) reported that for a sample of \(125 \) courses taught by fulltime faculty, the mean course \(GPA\) was \(2.7186\) and the standard deviation was \(.63342\), whereas for a sample of \(88\) courses taught by part-timers, the mean and standard deviation were \(2.8639\) and \(.49241,\) respectively. Does it appear that true average course \(GPA\) for part-time faculty differs from that for faculty teaching full-time? Test the appropriate hypotheses at significance level \( .01\).

Recent incidents of food contamination have caused great concern among consumers. The article "How Safe Is That Chicken?" (Consumer Reports, Jan. 2010: 19-23) reported that 35 of 80 randomly selected Perdue brand broilers tested positively for either campylobacter or salmonella (or' both), the leading bacterial causes of food-borne disease, whereas 66 of 80 Tyson brand broilers tested positive.

  1. Does it appear that the true proportion of noncontaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand? Carry out a test of hypotheses using a significance level .01.
  2. If the true proportions of non-contaminated chickens for the Perdue and Tyson brands are .50 and .25, respectively, how likely is it that the null hypothesis of equal proportions will be rejected when a .01 significance level is used and the sample sizes are both 80?
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.