/*! 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} Q75 SE Head ability is the ability of a... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

Head ability is the ability of a cylindrical piece of material to be shaped into the head of a bolt, screw, or other cold-formed part without cracking. The article "New Methods for Assessing Cold Heading Quality" (Wire J. Intl., Oct. 1996: 66-72) described the result of a head ability impact test applied to 30 specimens of aluminum killed steel and 30 specimens of silicon killed steel. The sample mean head ability rating number for the steel specimens was 6.43, and the sample mean for aluminum specimens was 7.09. Suppose that the sample standard deviations were 1.08 and 1.19, respectively. Do you agree with the article's authors that the difference in head ability ratings is significant at the 5% level (assuming that the two head ability distributions are normal)?

Short Answer

Expert verified

Reject null hypothesis. Agree with the author of the article.

Step by step solution

01

To find the article's authors that the difference in head ability ratings is significant at the 5% level 

Assumption that two head ability distributions are normal makes two-sample t test best for this case.

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 the P value.

02

To find the article's authors that the difference in head ability ratings is significant at the 5% level 

The hypotheses of interest are\({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 0\) versus\({H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} \ne 0\), where\({\mu _1}\), and\({\mu _2}\)are the true mean head ability rating for aluminum killed steel specimens and the true mean for silicon killed steel, respectively. For given values

\(\begin{array}{l}\bar x = 6.43;{s_1} = 1.08;m = 30 \\\bar y = 7.09;{s_2} = 1.19;n = 30\end{array}\)

The t statistic value is

\(t = \frac{{\bar x - \bar y - {\Delta _0}}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} }} = \frac{{6.43 - 7.09 - 0}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{1.0{8^2}}}{{30}} + \frac{{1.1{9^2}}}{{30}}} }} = \frac{{ - 0.66}}{{\sqrt {0.03888 + 0.0472} }} = - 2.25\)

To compute the P value, you need to compute the degrees of freedom first

\(\nu = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{m} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{n}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/m} \right)}^2}}}{{m - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/n} \right)}^2}}}{{n - 1}}}} = \frac{{{{(0.03888 + 0.0472)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{(0.03888)}^2}}}{{29}} + \frac{{{{(0.0472)}^2}}}{{29}}}} = 57.5\)

and the nearest round down integer is 57 , thus

\(\nu = 57\)

03

To find the article's authors that the difference in head ability ratings is significant at the 5% level 

The alternative hypothesis is\({H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} \ne 0\), this the P value is two times the area under the\({t_{57}}\)curve to the right of |t|. Thus

\(P = 2 \times P(T > 2.25) = 2 \times 0.014 = 0.028\)

where T is the students statistic with 57 degrees of freedom, and the value was computed by a software (you could have taken the approximate value from the table - estimate it).

The P value is

\(P = 0.028 < 0.05 = \alpha \)

thus

reject null hypothesis

Yes, you should agree with the author of the article.

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

Adding computerized medical images to a database promises to provide great resources for physicians. However, there are other methods of obtaining such information, so the issue of efficiency of access needs to be investigated. The article "The Comparative Effectiveness of Conventional and Digital Image Libraries" J. of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 2001: 8-15) reported on an experiment in which 13 computerproficient medical professionals were timed both while retrieving an image from a library of slides and while retrieving the same image from a computer database with a Web front end.

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{\;Subject\;\;\;\;\;1\;\;\;2\;\;3\;\;\;4\;\;\;5\;\;\;6\;\;\;\;\;7}\\{\;Slide\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;30\;35\;40\;25\;20\;30\;\;35}\\{\;Digital\;\;\;\;\;\;\;25\;16\;15\;15 10\;20\;\;\;7}\\{\;Difference\;\;5\;19\;25\;10\;10\;10\;28}\\{\;Subject\;\;\;\;\;8\;\;9\;\;10\;11\;12\;13}\\{\;Slide\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;62\;40\;51\;25\;42\;33\;}\\{Digital\;\;\;\;\;\;\;16\;15\;13\;11\;19\;19}\\{Difference\;46\;25\;38\;14\;23\;14}\end{array}\)

a. Construct a comparative boxplot of times for the two types of retrieval, and comment on any interesting features.

b. Estimate the difference between true average times for the two types of retrieval in a way that conveys information about precision and reliability. Be sure to check the plausibility of any assumptions needed in your analysis. Does it appear plausible that the true average times for the two types of retrieval are identical? Why or why not?

Arsenic is a known carcinogen and poison. The standard laboratory procedures for measuring arsenic \(concentration (\mu g/L)\) in water are expensive. Consider the accompanying summary data and Minitab output for comparing a laboratory method to a new relatively quick and inexpensive field method (from the article "Evaluation of a New Field Measurement Method for Arsenic in Drinking Water Samples," J. of Emvir. Engr., 2008: 382-388).

Two-Sample T-Test and CI

Sample N Mean StDev SE Mean

1 3 19.70 1.10 0.65

2 3 10.90 0.60 0.35

Estimate for difference: 8.800

95% CI for difference: 6.498,11.102

T -Test of difference =0 (vs not = ):

T -Value =12.1 P -Value =0.001 DF=3

What conclusion do you draw about the two methods, and why? Interpret the given confidence interval. (Note: One of the article's authors indicated in private communication that they were unsure why the two methods disagreed.)

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.

The invasive diatom species Didymosphenia geminata has the potential to inflict substantial ecological and economic damage in rivers. The article "Substrate Characteristics Affect Colonization by the BloomForming Diatom Didymosphenia geminata" (Acquatic Ecology, 2010:\(33 - 40\)) described an investigation of colonization behavior. One aspect of particular interest was whether the roughness of stones impacted the degree of colonization. The authors of the cited article kindly provided the accompanying data on roughness ratio (dimensionless) for specimens of sandstone and shale.

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{ Sandstone: }&{5.74}&{2.07}&{3.29}&{0.75}&{1.23}\\{}&{2.95}&{1.58}&{1.83}&{1.61}&{1.12}\\{}&{2.91}&{3.22}&{2.84}&{1.97}&{2.48}\\{}&{3.45}&{2.17}&{0.77}&{1.44}&{3.79}\end{array}\)

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{l}}{ Shale: }&{.56}&{.84}&{.40}&{.55}&{.36}&{.72}\\{}&{.29}&{.47}&{.66}&{.48}&{.28}&{}\\{}&{.72}&{.31}&{.35}&{.32}&{.37}&{.43}\\{}&{.60}&{.54}&{.43}&{.51}&{}&{}\end{array}\)

Normal probability plots of both samples show a reasonably linear pattern. Estimate the difference between true average roughness for sandstone and that for shale in a way that provides information about reliability and precision, and interpret your estimate. Does it appear that true average roughness differs for the two types of rocks (a formal test of this was reported in the article)? (Note: The investigators concluded that more diatoms colonized the rougher surface than the smoother surface.)

How does energy intake compare to energy expenditure? One aspect of this issue was considered in the article 鈥淢easurement of Total Energy Expenditure by the Doubly Labelled Water Method in Professional Soccer Players鈥 (J. of Sports Sciences, 2002: 391鈥397), which contained the accompanying data (MJ/day).

Test to see whether there is a significant difference between intake and expenditure. Does the conclusion depend on whether a significance level of .05, .01, or .001 is used?

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.