/*! 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} Q46SE In Example \(10.11\), subtract \... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91影视

91影视

In Example \(10.11\), subtract \({\overline x _{i.}}\), from each observation in the \({i^{th}}\)sample \(\left( {i = 1,...,6} \right)\) to obtain a set of \(18\)residuals. Then construct a normal probability plot and comment on the plausibility of the normality assumption.

Short Answer

Expert verified

The probability plot is

And it is plausible to assume normality.

Step by step solution

01

Step 1: Analyzing the given data and its differences

The data given in the Table in Example \(10.11\) with the corresponding averages is shown in the below table.

\(\begin{aligned}{*{20}{c}}{S.NO}&{1:}&{2:}&{3:}&{4:}&{5:}&{6:}\\1&{55}&{26}&{78}&{92}&{49}&{80}\\2&{53}&{37}&{91}&{100}&{51}&{85}\\3&{54}&{32}&{85}&{96}&{50}&{83}\\{{{\overline x }_i}}&{54.00}&{31.67}&{84.67}&{96.00}&{50.00}&{82.67}\end{aligned}\)

Using the table above, the appropriate differences are,

\(\begin{aligned}{*{20}{c}}{1:}&{2:}&{3:}&{4:}&{5:}&{6:}\\{1.00}&{ - 5.67}&{ - 6.67}&{ - 4.00}&{ - 1.00}&{ - 2.67}\\{ - 1.00}&{5.33}&{6.33}&{4.00}&{1.00}&{2.33}\\{0.00}&{0.33}&{0.33}&{0.00}&{0.00}&{0.33}\end{aligned}\)

02

Plotting the probability graph

Firstly, let us arrange them in order from smallest to highest.

\(\begin{aligned}{l} - 6.67, - 5.67, - 4.00, - 2.67, - 1.00, - 1.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.33,0.33,0.33,\\1.00,1.00,2.33,4.00,5.33,6.33\end{aligned}\)

The corresponding \(z\)percentiles are,

\(\begin{aligned}{l} - 1.91, - 1.38, - 1.09, - 0.86, - 0.67, - 0.67, - 0.36, - 0.36, - 0.36,0.07,0.07,\\0.36,0.51,0.51,0.86,1.09,1.38,1.91\end{aligned}\)

The normal probability plot is shown in the figure below,

The above plot shows us that there is no doubt that the residuals are not normally distributed.

So, it is plausible to assume normality.

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

Four types of mortars-ordinary cement mortar(OCM), polymer impregnated mortar(PIM), resin mortar(RM), and polymer cement mortar(PCM)- were subjected to a compression test to measure strength (MPa). Three strength observations for each mortar type are given in the article 鈥淧olymer Mortar Composite Matrices For Maintance- Free Highly Durable Ferrocement鈥漚nd are reproduced here. Construct an ANOVA table. Using a \(.05\)significance level , determine whether the data suggests that the true mean strength is not the same for all the four mortar types. If you determine that the true mean strengths are not all equal, use Turkey鈥檚 method to identify the significant differences.

\(\begin{aligned}{*{20}{c}}{OCM}&{32.15}&{35.53}&{34.20}\\{PIM}&{126.32}&{126.80}&{134.79}\\{RM}&{117.91}&{115.02}&{114.58}\\{PCM}&{29.09}&{30.87}&{29.80}\end{aligned}\)

The article 鈥淭he Effect of Enzyme Inducing Agents on the Survival Times of Rats Exposed to Lethal Levels of Nitrogen Dioxide鈥 (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1978: 169鈥174) reports the following data on survival times for rats exposed to nitrogen dioxide (70 ppm) via different injection regimens. There were J = 14 rats in each group.

a. Test the null hypothesis that true average survival time does not depend on an injection regimen against the alternative that there is some dependence on an injection regimen using a 5 .01.

b. Suppose that 100\(\left( {1 - \alpha } \right)\)% CIs for k different parametric functions are computed from the same ANOVA data set. Then it is easily verified that the simultaneous confidence level is at least 100\(\left( {1 - k\alpha } \right)\)%. Compute CIs with a simultaneous confidence level of at least 98% for\({\mu _1} - 1/5\left( {{\mu _2} + {\mu _3} + {\mu _4} + {\mu _5} + {\mu _6}} \right)\)and\(1/4\left( {{\mu _2} + {\mu _3} + {\mu _4} + {\mu _5}} \right) - {\mu _6}\).

In Exercise \(11\) suppose \({\overline x _{3.}} = 427.5.\) now which true average spreading rates differ significantly from one another? Be sure to use the method of underscoring to illustrate your conclusion, and write a paragraph summarizing your results.

A study of the properties of mental plate 鈥揷onnected trusses used for roof support (鈥淢odeling joints made with Light-Gauge metal connector plates,鈥 Forest products J., 1979:39-44) yielded the following observations on axial-stiffness index(kips/in.) for plate lengths \(4,6,8.10,12\)in:

\(\begin{aligned}{l}4:309.2\\6:402.1\\8:392.4\\10:346.7\\12:407.4\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}409.5\\347.2\\366.2\\452.9\\441.8\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}311.0\\361.0\\351.0\\461.4\\419.9\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}326.5\\404.5\\357.1\\433.1\\410.7\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}316.8\\331.0\\409.9\\410.6\\473.4\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}349.8\\348.9\\367.3\\384.2\\441.2\end{aligned}\) \(\begin{aligned}{l}309.7\\381.7\\382.0\\362.6\\465.8\end{aligned}\)

Does variation in plate length have any effect on true average axial stiffness? state and test the relevant hypotheses using analysis of variance with Display your results in an ANOVA table.(Hint : \({\sum x ^2}_{ij.} = 5,241,420.79.)\)

Refer to Exercise 38. What is b for the test when true average DNA content is identical for three of the diets and falls below this common value by 1 standard deviation (s) for the other two diets?

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.