/*! 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} Q90 SE The invasive diatom species Didy... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

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.)

Short Answer

Expert verified

There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the true average roughness differs for the two types of rocks.

Step by step solution

01

To find the sufficient evidence to support the claim that the true average roughness differs for the two types of rocks

Given:

\(\begin{array}{l}{n_1} = 20\\{n_2} = 21\end{array}\)

The mean is the sum of all values divided by the number of values:

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\bar x}_1} = \frac{{5.74 + 2.07 + 3.29 + \ldots + 0.77 + 1.44 + 3.79}}{{20}} \approx 2.6305\\{{\bar x}_2} = \frac{{0.56 + 0.84 + 0.40 + \ldots + 0.54 + 0.43 + 0.51}}{{21}} \approx 0.4852\end{array}\)

The variance is the sum of squared deviations from the mean divided by\(n - 1\). The standard deviation is the square root of the variance:

\(\begin{array}{l}{s_1} = \sqrt {\frac{{{{(5.74 - 2.6305)}^2} + \ldots . + {{(3.79 - 2.6305)}^2}}}{{20 - 1}}} \approx 1.2066\\{s_2} = \sqrt {\frac{{{{(0.56 - 0.4852)}^2} + \ldots . + {{(0.51 - 0.4852)}^2}}}{{21 - 1}}} \approx 0.1569\end{array}\)

Let us assume: \(\alpha = 0.01\)

Given claim: Differs

The claim is either the null hypothesis or the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis state the opposite of each other. The null hypothesis needs to contain an equality.

\(\begin{array}{l}{H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 0\\{H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} \ne 0\end{array}\)

02

Final proof

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

\(\Delta = \frac{{\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + {{\frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/{n_1}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_1} - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/{n_2}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_2} - 1}}}} = \frac{{\frac{{{{1.2066}^2}}}{{20}} + \frac{{{{0.1569}^2}}}{{21}}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {{{1.2066}^2}/20} \right)}^2}}}{{20 - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {{{0.1569}^2}/21} \right)}^2}}}{{21 - 1}}}} \approx 19\)

\(t = \frac{{\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) - \left( {{\mu _1} - {\mu _2}} \right)}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} }} = \frac{{2.3605 - 0.4852 - 0}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{{{1.2066}^2}}}{{20}} + \frac{{{{0.1569}^2}}}{{21}}} }} \approx 6.895\)

The P-value is the probability of obtaining the value of the test statistic, or a value more extreme. The P-value is the number (or interval) in the column title of Student's T distribution in the appendix containing the t-value in the row\(df = 19\):

\(P < 2 \times 0.0005 = 0.001\)

If the P-value is less than or equal to the significance level, then the null hypothesis is rejected:

\(P < 0.05 \Rightarrow {\rm{ Reject }}{H_0}\)

There is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the true average roughness differs for the two types of rocks.

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

Suppose a level .05 test of \({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 0\) versus \({H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} > 0\) is to be performed, assuming \((m = n)\)\({\sigma _1} = {\sigma _2} = \)10 and normality of both distributions, using equal sample sizes. Evaluate the probability of a type II error when \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 1\) and\(n = 25,100,2500\), and 10,000. Can you think of real problems in which the difference \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 1\)has little practical significance? Would sample sizes of n=10,000 be desirable in such problems?

The following summary data on bending strength (lb-in/in) of joints is taken from the article "Bending Strength of Corner Joints Constructed with Injection Molded Splines" (Forest Products J., April, 1997: 89-92).

Type Sample size Sample mean sample SD

Without side coating 10 80.95 9.59

With side coating 10 63.23 5.96

a. Calculate a 95 % lower confidence bound for true average strength of joints with a side coating.

b. Calculate a 95 % lower prediction bound for the strength of a single joint with a side coating.

c. Calculate an interval that, with 95 % confidence, includes the strength values for at least 95 % of the population of all joints with side coatings.

d. Calculate a 95 % confidence interval for the difference between true average strengths for the two types of joints.

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)?

An experiment to compare the tension bond strength of polymer latex modified mortar (Portland cement mortar to which polymer latex emulsions have been added during mixing) to that of unmodified mortar resulted in \(\bar x = 18.12kgf/c{m^2}\)for the modified mortar \((m = 40)\) and \(\bar y = 16.87kgf/c{m^2}\) for the unmodified mortar \((n = 32)\). Let \({\mu _1}\) and \({\mu _2}\) be the true average tension bond strengths for the modified and unmodified mortars, respectively. Assume that the bond strength distributions are both normal.

a. Assuming that \({\sigma _1} = 1.6\) and \({\sigma _2} = 1.4\), test \({H_0}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 0\) versus \({H_a}:{\mu _1} - {\mu _2} > 0\) at level . \(01.\)

b. Compute the probability of a type II error for the test of part (a) when \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 1\).

c. Suppose the investigator decided to use a level \(.05\) test and wished \(\beta = .10\) when \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2} = 1. \). If \(m = 40\), what value of n is necessary?

d. How would the analysis and conclusion of part (a) change if \({\sigma _1}\) and \({\sigma _2}\) were unknown but \({s_1} = 1.6\)and \({s_7} = 1.4?\)

Acrylic bone cement is commonly used in total joint arthroplasty as a grout that allows for the smooth transfer of loads from a metal prosthesis to bone structure. The paper "Validation of the Small-Punch Test as a Technique for Characterizing the Mechanical Properties of Acrylic Bone Cement" U. of Engr. in Med., 2006: 11-21) gave the following data on breaking force (N) :

Temp Medium \(n \) \( \bar x \) \( s\)

\(2{2^\circ }\) Dry 6 170.60 39.08

\(3{7^\circ }\) Dry 6 325.73 34.97

\(2{2^\circ }\) Wet 6 366.36 34.82

\(3{7^\circ }\) Wet 6 306.09 41.97

Assume that all population distributions are normal.

a. Estimate true average breaking force in a dry medium at \(3{7^\circ }\) in a way that conveys information about reliability and precision, and interpret your estimate.

b. Estimate the difference between true average breaking force in a dry medium at \(3{7^\circ }\) and true average force at the same temperature in a wet medium, and do so in a way that conveys information about precision and reliability. Then interpret your estimate.

c. Is there strong evidence for concluding that true average force in a dry medium at the higher temperature exceeds that at the lower temperature by more than 100 N ?

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.