Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Damage to grapes from bird predation is a serious problem for grape growers. The article "'Experimental Method to Investigate and Monitor Bird Behavior and Damage to Vineyards" (Amer. \(J\). of Enology and Viticulture, 2004: 288-291) reported on an experiment involving a bird-feeder table, time-lapse video, and artificial foods. Information was collected for two different bird species at both the experimental location and at a natural vineyard setting. Consider the following data on time (sec) spent on a single visit to the location.

\(\begin{array}{l}Species Location n \overline x SEmean\\Blackbirds Exptl 65 13.4 2.05 \\Blackbirds Natural 50 9.7 1.76\\Silvereyes Exptl 34 49.4 4.78\\Silvereyes Natural 46 38.4 5.06\end{array}\)

a. Calculate an upper confidence bound for the true average time that blackbirds spend on a single visit at the experimental location.

b. Does it appear that true average time spent by blackbirds at the experimental location exceeds the true average time birds of this type spend at the natural location? Carry out a test of appropriate hypotheses.

c. Estimate the difference between the true average time blackbirds spend at the natural location and true average time that silvereyes spend at the natural

Short Answer

Expert verified

(a) \(95\% \)upper confidence bound: \(16.82555\)

(b) There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the true average time spent by blackbirds at the experimental location exceeds the true average time birds of this type spend at the natural location.

(c) \(( - 10.8421,10.6837)\)

Step by step solution

01

a)Step 1: Find the upper confident bound

Given:

\(\begin{array}{l}n = 65\\\bar x = 13.4\\{\sigma _{\bar x}} = 2.05\end{array}\)

Let us assume that we want to calculate the confidence bound with\(95\% \)confidence (other confidence levels work similarly).

\(c = 95\% = 0.95\)

Determine the t-value by looking in the row starting with degrees of freedom\(df = n - 1 = 65 - 1 = 64 > 60\)and in the column with\(1 - c = \)\(0.05\)in the table of the Student's T distribution:

\({t_\alpha } = 1.671\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \times \frac{s}{{\sqrt n }} = 1.671 \times 2.05 \approx 3.42555\)

The boundaries of the confidence interval then become:

\(\bar x + E = 13.4 + 3.42555 = 16.82555\)

Thus the \(95\% \) upper confidence bound is \(16.82555.\)

02

b)Step 2: Determine the test statistic

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\bar x}_1} = 13.4\\{{\bar x}_2} = 9.7\\{n_1} = 65\\{n_2} = 50\\{\sigma _{{{\bar x}_1}}} = 2.05 \Rightarrow {s_1} = {\sigma _{{{\bar x}_1}}}\sqrt n = 2.05\sqrt {65} \approx 16.5276\\{\sigma _{{{\bar x}_2}}} = 1.76 \Rightarrow {s_2} = {\sigma _{{{\bar x}_2}}}\sqrt n = 1.76\sqrt {50} \approx 12.4451\end{array}\)

Let us assume: \(\alpha = 0.05\)

Given claim: exceeds

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 the value mentioned in the claim.

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

Determine the test statistic:

\(t = \frac{{{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} }} = \frac{{13.4 - 9.7}}{{\sqrt {\frac{{{{16.5276}^2}}}{{65}} + \frac{{{{12.4451}^2}}}{{50}}} }} \approx 1.369\)

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

\(\Delta = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/{n_1}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_1} - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/{n_2}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_2} - 1}}}} = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{{{16.5276}^2}}}{{65}} + \frac{{{{12.4451}^2}}}{{50}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {{{16.5276}^2}/65} \right)}^2}}}{{65 - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {{{12.4451}^2}/50} \right)}^2}}}{{50 - 1}}}} \approx 112 > 60\)

The P-value is the probability of obtaining the value of the test statistic, or a value more extreme. The \({\rm{P}}\)-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 \(df = 60\) :

\(0.05 < P < 0.10\)

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

\(P > 0.05 \Rightarrow {\rm{ Fail to reject }}{H_0}\)

There is not sufficient evidence to support the claim that the true average time spent by blackbirds at the experimental location exceeds the true average time birds of this type spend at the natural location.

03

C)Step 3: The end point of confidence

\({\bar x_1} = 9.7\)

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\bar x}_2} = 38.4\\{n_1} = 50\\{n_2} = 46\\{\sigma _{{{\bar x}_1}}} = 1.76 \Rightarrow {s_1} = {\sigma _{{{\bar x}_1}}}\sqrt n = 1.76\sqrt {50} \approx 12.4451\\{\sigma _{{{\bar x}_2}}} = 5.06 \Rightarrow {s_2} = {\sigma _{{{\bar x}_2}}}\sqrt n = 5.06\sqrt {46} \approx 34.3186\end{array}\)

Let us assume that we want to calculate the confidence interval with $95 \%$ confidence (other confidence levels work similarly).

\(c = 95\% = 0.95\)

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

\(\Delta = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/{n_1}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_1} - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/{n_2}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_2} - 1}}}} = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{{{12.4451}^2}}}{{50}} + \frac{{{{34.3186}^2}}}{{46}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {{{12.4451}^2}/50} \right)}^2}}}{{50 - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {{{34.3186}^2}/46} \right)}^2}}}{{46 - 1}}}} \approx 55 > 50\)

Determine the t-value by looking in the row starting with degrees of freedom\(df = 50\)and in the column with\(1 - c/2 = 0.025\)in the Student's distribution table in the appendix:

\({t_{\alpha /2}} = 2.009\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} = 2.009 \cdot \sqrt {\frac{{{{12.4451}^2}}}{{50}} + \frac{{{{34.3186}^2}}}{{46}}} \approx 10.7629\)

The endpoints of the confidence interval for \({\mu _1} - {\mu _2}\) are: \(\begin{array}{l}\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) - E = (1.5083 - 1.5875) - 10.7629 = - 0.0792 - 10.7629 = - 10.8421\\\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) + E = (1.5083 - 1.5875) + 10.7629 = - 0.0792 + 10.7629 = 10.6837\end{array}\)

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 Vaia!

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

Determine the number of degrees of freedom for the two-sample t test or CI in each of the following.

\(\begin{array}{l}a. m = 10, n = 10, {s_1} = 5.0, {s_2} = 6.0\\b. m = 10, n = 15,{s_1} = 5.0, {s_2} = 6.0\\c. m = 10, n = 15, {s_1} = 2.0, {s_2} = 6.0\\d. m = 12, n = 24, {s_1} = 5.0, {s_2} = 6.0\\\\\end{array}\)

The article "Effect of Internal Gas Pressure on the Compression Strength of Beverage Cans and Plastic Bottles" (J. of Testing and Evaluation, \(1993: 129 - 131\)) includes the accompanying data on compression strength (lb) for a sample of\(12 - oz\)aluminum cans filled with strawberry drink and another sample filled with cola. Does the data suggest that the extra carbonation of cola results in a higher average compression strength? Base your answer on a\(P\)-value. What assumptions are necessary for your analysis?

\(\begin{array}{l}BeverageSampleSizeSampleMeanSampleSD\\Strawberrydrink1554021\\Cola1555415\end{array}\)

In medical investigations, the ratio \(\theta = {p_1}/{p_2}\)is often of more interest than the difference \({p_1} - {p_2}\)(e.g., individuals given treatment 1 are how many times as likely to recover as those given treatment\(2?)\). Let\(\hat \theta = {\hat p_1}/{\hat p_2}\). When \(m\)and n are both large, the statistic \(ln(\theta )\)has approximately a normal distribution with approximate mean value \(ln(\theta )\)and approximate standard deviation \({[(m - x)/(mx) + (n - y)/(ny)]^{1/2}}.\)

  1. Use these facts to obtain a large-sample 95 % CI formula for estimating\(ln(\theta )\), and then a CI for \(\theta \)itself.
  2. Return to the heart-attack data of Example 1.3, and calculate an interval of plausible values for \(\theta \)at the 95 % confidence level. What does this interval suggest about the efficacy of the aspirin treatment?

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 (โ€œVegetarianism, Bone Loss, and Vitamin D: A Longitudinal Study in Asian Vegans and Non-Vegans,โ€ European J. of Clinical Nutr., 2012: 75โ€“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 (โ€œcovariatesโ€) such as age, body weight, and various nutritional factors; the resulting CI included 0, suggesting no diet effect.

The accompanying data consists of prices (\$) for one sample of California cabernet sauvignon wines that received ratings of 93 or higher in the May 2013 issue of Wine Spectator and another sample of California cabernets that received ratings of 89 or lower in the same issue.

\(\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}{ \ge 93:}&{100}&{100}&{60}&{135}&{195}&{195}&{}\\{}&{125}&{135}&{95}&{42}&{75}&{72}&{}\\{ \le 89:}&{80}&{75}&{75}&{85}&{75}&{35}&{85}\\{}&{65}&{45}&{100}&{28}&{38}&{50}&{28}\end{array}\)

Assume that these are both random samples of prices from the population of all wines recently reviewed that received ratings of at least 93 and at most 89 , respectively.

a. Investigate the plausibility of assuming that both sampled populations are normal.

b. Construct a comparative boxplot. What does it suggest about the difference in true average prices?

c. Calculate a confidence interval at the\(95\% \)confidence level to estimate the difference between\({\mu _1}\), the mean price in the higher rating population, and\({\mu _2}\), the mean price in the lower rating population. Is the interval consistent with the statement "Price rarely equates to quality" made by a columnist in the cited issue of the magazine?

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.

Sign-up for free