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

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.

Short Answer

Expert verified

(a) 59.7753

(b) 51.7721

(c) (76.6868,85.2132)

(d) (10.1111,25.3289)

Step by step solution

01

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

(a)

Given:

\(\begin{array}{l}{{\bar x}_1} = 80.95\\{s_1} = 9.59\\{{\bar x}_2} = 63.23\\{s_2} = 5.96\\{n_1} = {n_2} = 10\\c = 95\% = 0.95\end{array}\)

Determine the t-value by looking in the row starting with degrees of freedom $d\(f = n - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9\)and in the column with\(\alpha = 1 - c = 0.05\)in the table of the Student's T distribution:

\({t_\alpha } = 1.833\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \times \frac{s}{{\sqrt n }} = 1.833 \times \frac{{5.96}}{{\sqrt {10} }} \approx 3.4547\)

The boundaries of the confidence interval then become:

\(\bar x - E = 63.23 - 3.4547 = 59.7753\)

Thus the 95 % lower confidence bound is 59.7753.

02

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

(b)

Determine the t-value by looking in the row starting with degrees of freedom \(df = n - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9\) and in the column with \(\alpha = 1 - c = 0.05\) in the table of the Student's T distribution:

\({t_\alpha } = 1.833\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \times s\sqrt {1 + \frac{1}{n}} = 1.833 \times 5.96\sqrt {1 + \frac{1}{{10}}} \approx 11.4579\)

The boundaries of the prediction interval then become:

\(\bar x - E = 63.23 - 11.4579 = 51.7721\)

Thus the 95 % lower prediction bound is 51.7721.

03

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

(c)

Determine the t-value by looking in the row starting with degrees of freedom\(df = n - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9\)and in the column with\(\alpha = 1 - c/2 = 0.025\)in the table of the Student's T distribution:

\({t_\alpha } = 2.262\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \times \frac{s}{{\sqrt n }} = 2.262 \times \frac{{5.96}}{{\sqrt {10} }} \approx 4.2632\)

The boundaries of the confidence interval then become:

\(\begin{array}{l}\bar x - E = 80.95 - 4.2632 = 76.6868\\\\\bar x + E = 80.95 + 4.2632 = 85.2132\end{array}\)

04

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

(d)

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

\(\Delta = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {s_1^2/{n_1}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_1} - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {s_2^2/{n_2}} \right)}^2}}}{{{n_2} - 1}}}} = \frac{{{{\left( {\frac{{9.5{9^2}}}{{10}} + \frac{{5.9{6^2}}}{{10}}} \right)}^2}}}{{\frac{{{{\left( {9.5{9^2}/10} \right)}^2}}}{{10 - 1}} + \frac{{{{\left( {5.9{6^2}/10} \right)}^2}}}{{10 - 1}}}} \approx 15\)

Determine the t-value by looking in the row starting with degrees of freedom df=15 and in the column with\(\alpha = 1 - c/2 = 0.025\) in the Student's t distribution table in the appendix:

\({t_{\alpha /2}} = 2.131\)

The margin of error is then:

\(E = {t_{\alpha /2}} \times \sqrt {\frac{{s_1^2}}{{{n_1}}} + \frac{{s_2^2}}{{{n_2}}}} = 2.131 \times \sqrt {\frac{{9.5{9^2}}}{{10}} + \frac{{5.9{6^2}}}{{10}}} \approx 7.6089\)

The endpoints of the confidence interval for\({\mu _1} - {\mu _2}\)are:

\(\begin{array}{l}\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) - E = (80.95 - 63.23) - 7.6089 = 17.72 - 7.6089 = 10.1111\\\\\left( {{{\bar x}_1} - {{\bar x}_2}} \right) + E = (80.95 - 63.23) + 7.6089 = 17.72 + 7.6089 = 25.3289\end{array}\)

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

It is well known that a placebo, a fake medication or treatment, can sometimes have a positive effect just because patients often expect the medication or treatment to be helpful. The article "Beware the Nocebo Effect" (New York Times, Aug. 12, 2012) gave examples of a less familiar phenomenon, the tendency for patients informed of possible side effects to actually experience those side effects. The article cited a study reported in The Journal of Sexual Medicine in which a group of patients diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia was randomly divided into two subgroups. One subgroup of size 55 received a compound of proven efficacy along with counseling that a potential side effect of the treatment was erectile dysfunction. The other subgroup of size 52 was given the same treatment without counseling. The percentage of the no-counseling subgroup that reported one or more sexual side effects was 15.3 %, whereas 43.6 % of the counseling subgroup reported at least one sexual side effect. State and test the appropriate hypotheses at significance level .05 to decide whether the nocebo effect is operating here. (Note: The estimated expected number of "successes" in the no-counseling sample is a bit shy of 10, but not by enough to be of great concern (some sources use a less conservative cutoff of 5 rather than 10).)

Teen Court is a juvenile diversion program designed to circumvent the formal processing of first-time juvenile offenders within the juvenile justice system. The article "An Experimental Evaluation of Teen Courts" (J. of Experimental Criminology, 2008: 137-163) reported on a study in which offenders were randomly assigned either to Teen Court or to the traditional Department of Juvenile Services method of processing. Of the \(56TC\) individuals, 18 subsequently recidivated (look it up!) during the 18 -month follow-up period, whereas 12 of the 51 DJS individuals did so. Does the data suggest that the true proportion of TC individuals who recidivate during the specified follow-up period differs from the proportion of DJS individuals who do so? State and test the relevant hypotheses using a significance level of 0.10.

Refer to Example 9.7. Does the data suggest that the standard deviation of the strength distribution for fused specimens is smaller than that for not-fused specimens? Carry out a test at significance level .01.

Recent incidents of food contamination have caused great concern among consumers. The article "How Safe Is That Chicken?" (Consumer Reports, Jan. 2010: 19-23) reported that 35 of 80 randomly selected Perdue brand broilers tested positively for either campylobacter or salmonella (or' both), the leading bacterial causes of food-borne disease, whereas 66 of 80 Tyson brand broilers tested positive.

  1. Does it appear that the true proportion of noncontaminated Perdue broilers differs from that for the Tyson brand? Carry out a test of hypotheses using a significance level .01.
  2. If the true proportions of non-contaminated chickens for the Perdue and Tyson brands are .50 and .25, respectively, how likely is it that the null hypothesis of equal proportions will be rejected when a .01 significance level is used and the sample sizes are both 80?

A study was carried out to compare two different methods, injection and nasal spray, for administering flu vaccine to children under the age of 5. All 8000 children in the study were given both an injection and a spray. However, the vaccine given to 4000 of the children actually contained just saltwater, and the spray given to the other 4000 children also contained just saltwater. At the end of the flu season, it was determined that 3.9% of the children who received the real vaccine via nasal spray contracted the flu, whereas 8.6% of the 4000 children receiving the real vaccine via injection contracted the flu.

(a). Why do you think each child received both an injection and a spray?

(b). Does one method for delivering the vaccine appear to be superior to the other? Test the appropriate hypotheses. [Note: The study was described in the article โ€œSpray Flu Vaccine May Work Better Than Injections for Tots,โ€ San Luis Obispo Tribune, May 2, 2006..

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