/*! 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} Q66 E Reconsider the data of Example \... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Reconsider the data of Example \(9.6\), and calculate a \(95\% \)upper confidence bound for the ratio of the standard deviation of the triacetate porosity distribution to that of the cotton porosity distribution.

Short Answer

Expert verified

\(\frac{{{s_2}}}{{{s_1}}} \times \sqrt {{F_{\alpha ,m - 1,n - 1}}} \)

Upper bound is \(8.1\)

Step by step solution

01

To find the confidence interval

The confidence interval for the ratio of the two variances with approximate \(100(1 - \alpha )\) confidence level can be obtained from

\(P\left( {{F_{1 - \alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}} \le \frac{{S_1^2/\sigma _1^2}}{{S_2^2/\sigma _2^2}} \le {F_{\alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}}} \right) = 1 - \alpha \)Look at

\({F_{1 - \alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}} \le \frac{{S_1^2/\sigma _1^2}}{{S_2^2/\sigma _2^2}} \le {F_{\alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}}\)

This is obviously equivalent to

\(\frac{{S_2^2}}{{S_1^2}} \cdot {F_{1 - \alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}} \le \frac{{\sigma _2^2}}{{\sigma _1^2}} \le \frac{{S_2^2}}{{S_1^2}} \cdot {F_{\alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}}\)

By substituting corresponding values with sample standard deviations \({s_1}\) and \({s_2}\)the confidence interval for the proportion of the two variances is obtained

\(\frac{{s_2^2}}{{s_1^2}} \cdot {F_{1 - \alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}} \le \frac{{\sigma _2^2}}{{\sigma _1^2}} \le \frac{{s_2^2}}{{s_1^2}} \cdot {F_{\alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}}\)

Thus, the confidence interval for the proportion of the two standard deviations is square root of the confidence interval for the proportion of the two variances

\(\frac{{{s_2}}}{{{s_1}}} \cdot \sqrt {{F_{1 - \alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}}} \le \frac{{{\sigma _2}}}{{{\sigma _1}}} \le \frac{{{s_2}}}{{{s_1}}} \cdot \sqrt {{F_{\alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}}} \)

02

Step 2:Final proof

To obtain the upper bound, the value \({F_{\alpha /2,m - 1,n - 1}}\) needs to be replaces with\({F_{\alpha ,m - 1,n - 1}}\); thus the upper bound is

\(\frac{{{s_2}}}{{{s_1}}} \cdot \sqrt {{F_{\alpha ,m - 1,n - 1}}} \cdot \)

Given values in the example \(9.6\) are \({s_1} = 0.79\)and \({s_2} = 3.59,{\rm{ }}m = n = 10.\)The \(95\% \)upper bound \((\alpha = 0.05)\) for the proportion \({\sigma _2}{\sigma _1}\)is

\(\frac{{{s_2}}}{{{s_1}}} \cdot \sqrt {{F_{\alpha ,m - 1,n - 1}}} = \frac{{3.59}}{{0.79}} \cdot \sqrt {3.18} = 8.1\)

where \({F_{\alpha ,m - 1,n - 1}} = {F_{0.05,10 - 1,10 - 1}} = {F_{0.05,9,9}} = 3.18\)which was obtained using computer software (you can use the table in the appendix.

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

a. Show for the upper-tailed test with \({\sigma _1}\) and \({\sigma _2}\)known that as either\(m\) or\(n\) increases, \(\beta \)decreases when \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} > {\Delta _0}\).

b. For the case of equal sample sizes \(\left( {m = n} \right)\)and fixed \(\alpha \),what happens to the necessary sample size \(n\) as \(\beta \) is decreased, where \(\beta \) is the desired type II error probability at a fixed alternative?

The article "Urban Battery Litter" cited in Example 8.14 gave the following summary data on zinc mass (g) for two different brands of size D batteries:

Brand Sample Size Sample Mean Sample SD

Duracell 15 138.52 7.76

Energizer 20 149.07 1.52

Assuming that both zinc mass distributions are at least approximately normal, carry out a test at significance level .05 to decide whether true average zinc mass is different for the two types of batteries.

The article "'The Accuracy of Stated Energy Contents of Reduced-Energy, Commercially Prepared Foods" (J. of the Amer. Dietetic Assoc.s 2010: 116-123) presented the accompanying data on vendor-stated gross energy and measured value (both in kcal) for 10 different supermarket convenience meals):

Meal: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Stated: 180 220 190 230 200 370 250 240 80 180

Measured: 212 319 231 306 211 431 288 265 145 228

Carry out a test of hypotheses to decide whether the true average % difference from that stated differs from zero. (Note: The article stated "Although formal statistical methods do not apply to convenience samples, standard statistical tests were employed to summarize the data for exploratory purposes and to suggest directions for future studies.")

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?

The article "'Supervised Exercise Versus NonSupervised Exercise for Reducing Weight in Obese 2009: 85-90) reported on an investigation in which participants were randomly assigned to either a supervised exercise program or a control group. Those in the control group were told only that they should take measures to lose weight. After 4 months, the sample mean decrease in body fat for the 17 individuals in the experimental group was 6.2 kg with a sample standard deviation of 4.5 kg, whereas the sample mean and sample standard deviation for the 17 people in the control group were 1.7 kg and 3.1 kg, respectively. Assume normality of the two weight-loss distributions (as did the investigators).

  1. Calculate a 99% lower prediction bound for the weight loss of a single randomly selected individual subjected to the supervised exercise program. Can you be highly confident that such an individual will actually lose weight?
  2. Does it appear that true average decrease in body fat is more than two kg larger for the experimental condition than for the control condition? Use the accompanying Minitab output to reach a conclusion at significance level of .01. (Note: Minitab accepts such summary data as well as individual observations. Also, because the test is upper-tailed, the software provides a lower confidence bound rather than a conventional CI.)

Sample N Mean StDev SE Mean

Exptl 17 6.20 4.50 1.1

Control 17 1.70 3.10 0.75

Difference = mu (1) – mu (2)

Estimate for difference: 4.50

95% lower bound for difference : 2.25

T – test of difference = 2 (vs >) :

T – value = 1.89

P – value = 0.035 DF =28

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.