Q1.

a) Data
p=0.1 and n=100

Solution
𝑃(𝑝̅ > 0.05)
p(1 − p)
𝜎𝑝 = √( )
n

0.1(1 − 0.1)
= √( )
n

0.1 ∗ 0.9
= √( )
100
= 0.03

(0.05−0.1) 0.05
𝑍= =− = −1.67……….from the table 0.0475
0.03 0.03
Hence
𝑃(𝑧 > −1.67) = 1 − 0.0475
𝑃(𝑧 > −1.67) = 0.9525

This shows that at this probability about 95.25% will be rejected as defected while only
about 4.75% will be accepted.

b) Data:
n = 49, 𝑥̅ = 90400, 𝜎𝑥 = 10000

𝜎𝑥
i) Standard error of 𝑥̅ = 𝑍𝛼/2
√𝑛
Z> (1-α)/2
= 0.95/2
= 0.475
From the Z distribution Table: Z = 1.96
𝜎𝑥
Standard error of 𝑥̅ = 𝑍𝛼/2
√𝑛
10000 10000
𝑆. 𝐸 𝑥̅ = 1.96 = 1.96 7
√49
𝑆. 𝐸 𝑥̅ = 𝟐𝟖𝟎𝟎

𝜎𝑥
ii) Confidence Interval (C.I) = 𝑥̅ ± 𝑍𝛼/2
√𝑛
Therefore, (C.I) = 90400 ± 2800
C.I = 90400 − 2800 , 90400 + 2800
C.I = [𝟖𝟕𝟔𝟎𝟎, 𝟗𝟑𝟐𝟎𝟎]
Q2.

a) Data
𝑥̅ =45
𝜎 =20
𝑛 = 50
𝛼 = 0.02.
Statement of hypothesis
H0 ≤ 40 and Ha > 40

Critical point
Being a one tailed test from the table Z at 0.02 (1-0.02)= 2.05

Decision rule
Reject if Z> 2.05

Test statistic
𝑥̅ −µ
𝑍= 𝜎𝑥
√𝑛
45−40
𝑍= 20
√50
𝑍 = 1.77

Conclusion
Since the test statistic is less than the critical value (1.77<2.05) we fail to reject the null
hypothesis and therefore conclude that there isn’t significance evidence to disapprove the
companies claim.

b) Statement of Hypothesis
𝐻0 : µ = 220
𝐻𝑎 : µ ≠ 220

Since α= 0.05……..and this is a two tailed test Z α/2= 1.96

Therefore reject if:

|Z|>1.96

Test statistic
208 − 220
𝑍=
80
√80
−12
= 80
√80

=-1.34
Since the absolute value of the test statistic (1.34) is less than the critical value (1.96) we fail to reject
the null hypothesis and conclude that the changes have had no effect on the parking time.

P value is the probability of finding the observed results when the null hypothesis is true. In other
words it is the evidence against the null hypothesis and can be calculated as shown below

𝑥̅ −µ
P-value= 2 ∗ 𝑃 ⌊[𝑍 > | |⌋
µ(1−µ)
√
𝑛

Q3. The Data is as follows:

Analyser
Computerized Electronic Total
Compact 55 47 102
Intermediate 60 49 109
Full sized 68 51 119
Total 183 147 330

Anova: Two-Factor Without Replication

(from excel)

SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance

Compact 2 102 51 32
Intermediate 2 109 54.5 60.5
Full sized 2 119 59.5 144.5

Computerized 3 183 61 43
Electronic 3 147 49 4

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 73 2 36.5 3.47619 0.223404 19
Columns 216 1 216 20.57143 0.045331 18.51282
Error 21 2 10.5

Total 310 5
The F statistic for testing whether the time depends on the type of engine analyser is 20.57143 which
is greater than the F critical value. Therefore we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the time
needed to complete a minor engine tune up depends on the type of engine analyser.

Question 4

a) Null hypothesis: no significant difference exists among the three brands

Alternative hypothesis: a significant difference exists among the three brands

Anova: Two-Factor Without Replication

SUMMARY Count Sum Average Variance

60 2 101 50.5 264.5
44 2 107 53.5 220.5
48 2 97 48.5 180.5
46 2 94 47 18
52 2 90 45 32
54 2 108 54 98

Brand 2 6 344 57.33333 40.66667

Brand 3 6 253 42.16667 9.766667

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 128.75 5 25.75 1.043214 0.482051 5.050329
Columns 690.0833 1 690.0833 27.95746 0.003225 6.607891
Error 123.4167 5 24.68333

Total 942.25 11

Since the F statistic is greater than the critical value, we ject the null hypothesis at the 0.05 level of
significance and conclude that a difference exists among the three brands.

b) Null hypothesis: mean of brand 2= mean of brand 3

Question 5

Group 1 mean

(13 + 12 + 14 + 15 + 16 + 15)/6 = 85/6 = 14.1666667

Group 2 mean
(11 + 9 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 13)/6 = 69/6 = 11.5

Group 3 mean

(16 + 15 + 15 + 14 + 16 + 17)/6 = 93/6 =15.5

Grand mean

(85 + 69 + 93)/18 = 247/18 = 13.722222

SST

(13 – 13.722222)^2 = 0.521604935

(12 – 13.722222)^2 = 2.966049375

(14 – 13.722222)^2 = 0.077160495

(15 – 13.722222)^2 = 1.632716055

(16 – 13.722222)^2 = 5.188271615

(15 – 13.722222)^2 = 1.632716055

(11 – 13.722222)^2 = 7.410493815

(9 – 13.722222)^2 = 22.2993827

(11 – 13.722222)^2 = 7.410493815

(12 – 13.722222)^2 = 2.966049375

(13 – 13.722222)^2 = 0.521604935

(13 – 13.722222)^2 = 0.521604935

(16 – 13.722222)^2 = 5.188271615

(15 – 13.722222)^2 = 1.632716055

(15 – 13.722222)^2 = 1.632716055

(14 – 13.722222)^2 = 0.077160495

(16 – 13.722222)^2 = 5.188271615

(17 – 13.722222)^2 = 10.74382718

77.61111112

SSB

Group 1 = 6(14.1666667 – 13.722222)^2 = 1.185185321

Group 2 = 6(11.5 – 13.722222)^2 = 29.62962904

Group 3 = 6(15.5 – 13.722222)^2 = 18.96296344

49.77777768

SSW

77.611111112 – 49.77777768 = 27.83333344

SOURCE SS DF MS FS .

Between 49.77777768 (3 – 1) = 2 24.8888884 13.4131

Within 27.83333344 (18 – 3) = 15 1.855555563

Total 77.61111112 (18 – 1) = 17

Critical value = 3.6823 from ANOVA 5% table

𝐻0 : 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 1 = 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 2 = 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 3

𝐻𝑎 : 𝑎𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡

Since the test statistics of 13.4131 lies above the critical value of 3.6823, the null hypothesis is

rejected. Therefore there is a significant difference between the three groups.