/*! 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} Problem 65 Gun homicide in United States an... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Gun homicide in United States and Britain According to recent United Nations figures, the annual gun homicide rate is 62.4 per one million residents in the United States and 1.3 per one million residents in Britain. a. Show how to compare the proportion of residents of the two countries killed annually by guns using the difference of proportions. Show how the results differ according to whether the United States or Britain is identified as Group \(1 .\) b. Show how to compare the proportion of residents of the two countries using the relative risk. Show how the results differ according to whether the United States or Britain is identified as Group 1. c. When both proportions are very close to 0 , as in this example, which measure do you think is more useful for describing the strength of association? Why?

Short Answer

Expert verified
a. Difference in proportions is 0.0000611 (US first) or -0.0000611 (Britain first). b. Relative risk is 48 (US first) or 0.0208 (Britain first). c. Relative risk is more informative as it shows multiplicative comparison.

Step by step solution

01

Calculating the Difference of Proportions (US as Group 1)

Let's consider the United States as Group 1 and Britain as Group 2. We define the proportion of gun homicides for each group:- Proportion in the US, \( p_1 = \frac{62.4}{1,000,000} = 0.0000624 \)- Proportion in Britain, \( p_2 = \frac{1.3}{1,000,000} = 0.0000013 \)The difference in proportions, \( p_1 - p_2 \), is calculated as follows:\[p_1 - p_2 = 0.0000624 - 0.0000013 = 0.0000611\]
02

Calculating the Difference of Proportions (Britain as Group 1)

Now, consider Britain as Group 1 and the United States as Group 2. The proportions remain the same, but their order is reversed:- Proportion in Britain, \( p_1 = 0.0000013 \)- Proportion in the US, \( p_2 = 0.0000624 \)The difference in proportions, \( p_1 - p_2 \), is then:\[p_1 - p_2 = 0.0000013 - 0.0000624 = -0.0000611\]
03

Calculating the Relative Risk (US as Group 1)

Relative risk compares the likelihood of an event between two groups. Using the US as Group 1, the formula for relative risk (RR) is:\[RR = \frac{p_1}{p_2} = \frac{0.0000624}{0.0000013} \approx 48\]This means the gun homicide rate in the US is 48 times higher than in Britain when the US is considered Group 1.
04

Calculating the Relative Risk (Britain as Group 1)

Now let's calculate the relative risk using Britain as Group 1:\[RR = \frac{p_1}{p_2} = \frac{0.0000013}{0.0000624} \approx 0.0208\]Here, the relative risk indicates that the gun homicide rate in Britain is about 0.021 times that of the US, meaning significantly lower.
05

Choosing a Measure for Comparison

When both proportions are very close to 0, as in this example, relative risk is more useful for describing the strength of association. This is because the relative risk provides a multiplicative comparison that highlights how much more (or less) likely an event is to occur between groups, especially when the actual proportions are small values.

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!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Difference of Proportions
When we analyze gun homicide rates between the United States and Britain, one effective way is to look at the **difference of proportions**. The difference of proportions tells us how much higher or lower the rate of an event (like gun homicides) is between two groups.
To compute this difference, we first establish the proportions of gun homicides in each country. For the United States, the proportion \( p_1 = 0.0000624 \), and for Britain, \( p_2 = 0.0000013 \). The difference of proportions is simply \( p_1 - p_2 \).
  • Difference when the US is Group 1: \( 0.0000624 - 0.0000013 = 0.0000611 \).
  • Difference when Britain is Group 1: \( 0.0000013 - 0.0000624 = -0.0000611 \).
These calculations show that gun homicides are notably higher in the US compared to Britain, regardless of which country we assign as Group 1.
Relative Risk
Relative risk (RR) provides a ratio that describes how much more likely an event is to occur in one group compared to another. It is particularly helpful in comprehending the multiplicative difference in occurrence rates.
When viewed from the United States' perspective (as Group 1), the relative risk is calculated as:
  • RR = \( \frac{0.0000624}{0.0000013} \approx 48 \). This indicates the gun homicide rate in the US is 48 times higher than Britain.
Alternatively, from Britain's perspective (as Group 1):
  • RR = \( \frac{0.0000013}{0.0000624} \approx 0.0208 \). This means Britain's gun homicide rate is about 0.021 times that of the US, essentially highlighting that it is much lower.
Relative risk is a powerful statistic to see how starkly different risks are between these two countries.
Gun Homicide Rates
Gun homicide rates offer a specific look into the violent crime landscape of different countries. By evaluating these rates through statistical methods, we can uncover meaningful insights about safety and crime.
The annual rates are often standardized per million people to allow for straightforward comparison between countries of different population sizes. As noted:
  • In the United States: 62.4 gun homicides per million.
  • In Britain: 1.3 gun homicides per million.
Such dramatic differences highlight differing national circumstances, from gun laws to social factors, that contribute to these statistics.
Statistical Comparison Methods
Statistical comparison methods, like the difference of proportions and relative risk, are essential tools in the analysis of social science data. They offer perspectives on how one rate or probability stacks up against another.
When proportions are small, as with gun homicide rates, relative risk becomes more informative than the difference in proportions. It highlights the magnitude of difference in a more intuitive way.
  • Difference of proportions gives an absolute comparison, useful in understanding exact differences.
  • Relative risk shows multiplication, helping us understand relative changes in rare events.
Using a balance of these methods ensures solid, reliable insights into statistics like gun homicide rates.

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

Job satisfaction and income \(\quad\) A recent GSS was used to cross-tabulate income \((<\$ 15\) thousand, \(\$ 15-25\) thousand, \(\$ 25-40\) thousand, \(>\$ 40\) thousand \()\) in dollars with job satisfaction (very dissatisfied, little dissatisfied, moderately satisfied, very satisfied) for 96 subjects. a. For these data, \(X^{2}=6.0 .\) What is its \(d f\) value, and what is its approximate sampling distribution, if \(\mathrm{H}_{0}\) is true? b. For this test, the P-value is 0.74 . Interpret in the context of these variables. c. What decision would you make with a 0.05 significance level? Can you accept \(\mathrm{H}_{0}\) and conclude that job satisfaction is independent of income?

Stafistical versus practical significance In any significance test, when the sample size is very large, we have not necessarily established an important result when we obtain statistical significance. Explain what this means in the context of analyzing contingency tables with a chi-squared test.

Likelihood-ratio chi-squared For testing independence, most software also reports another chi-squared statistic, called likelihood-ratio chi-squared. It equals $$ G^{2}=2 \sum\left[\text { observed count } \times \log \left(\frac{\text { observed count }}{\text { expected count }}\right)\right] $$ It has similar properties as the \(X^{2}\) statistic, such as \(d f=(r-1) \times(c-1)\) a. Show that \(G^{2}=X^{2}=0\) when each observed count \(=\) expected count. b. Explain why in practice you would not expect to get exactly \(G^{2}=X^{2}=0,\) even if the variables are truly independent.

Education and religious beliefs \(\quad\) When data from a recent GSS were used to form a \(3 \times 3\) table that cross-tabulates highest degree \((1=\) less than high school, \(2=\) high school or junior college, \(3=\) bachelor or graduate) with religious beliefs \((\mathrm{F}=\) fundamentalist, \(\mathrm{M}=\) moderate \(, \mathrm{L}=\) liberal \(),\) the three largest standardized residuals were: 6.8 for the cell \((3, \mathrm{~F}), 6.3\) for the cell \((3, \mathrm{~L})\), and 4.5 for the cell \((1, \mathrm{~F})\) Summarize how to interpret these three standardized residuals.

True or false: \(\boldsymbol{X}^{2}=\mathbf{0}\). The null hypothesis for the test of independence between two categorical variables is \(\mathrm{H}_{0}: X^{2}=0,\) for the sample chi-squared statistic \(X^{2}\). (Hint: Do hypotheses refer to a sample or the population?)

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.