2 n 51

df 50
sample mean 1192
s 279
SE s/sqrt(n)
39.06781
t_alpha/2 2.403272
ME 93.89057

LL 1098.109
UL 1285.891
3 2.4066 n
2 2.4579 sample mean
3 2.6724 standard deviation
4 2.1228 SE
5 2.3238 t_alpha/2
6 2.1328
7 2.0665 ME
8 2.2738
9 2.2055 UL
10 2.5267 LL
11 2.5937
12 2.1994
13 2.5392
14 2.4359
15 2.2146
16 2.1933
17 2.4575
18 2.7956
19 2.3353
20 2.2699
 20
2.36116
0.19720975
0.044097441
2.093024054

0.092297004

2.453457004
2.268862996
4 n 28
3.21 sample mean 5.335
5.4 sample standard deviation 2.0163709609
3.5 SE 0.3810582938
4.39 t-alpha/2 2.0518305165
5.6
8.65 ME 0.7818670358
5.02 LL 4.5531329642
4.2 UL 6.1168670358
1.25
7.64
3.28
5.57
3.26
3.8
5.46
9.87
4.67
5.86
3.73
4.08
5.47
4.49
5.19
5.82
7.62
4.83
8.42
9.1
19
22
17 sample mean 21.3225806451613
19 stddev 4.19036272713308
32 n 31
24 SE 0.752611363208478
16 Null Hypothesis Mu>23
18 Mu<=23
27 hypotheticAL 23
17 Alpha 0.01
24 1-Alpha 0.99
19
23 t0 (sample mean-hypothetical mean
27 -1.67741935483871
28 -2.22879886863209
19 p-value
17 alternative hypothesis H1 mu<23
18
26 left tailed test
22 P-value 0.0167337511153249
19
15
18
25
23
19
26
21
16
21
24
divide this value with standard error

P-value is borderline to alpha we cant say wether it is effective or not as we get the pvalue we derived from the data it m
e we derived from the data it means that somedays we get 23 somedays less than 23 so its between.so somedays we have to find to do
medays we have to find to do how to improve.we will see wetherwhich are the days we are getting more than 23 then we have to check
han 23 then we have to check those days and improve it.
AS aplha is not given we will take it as 5%
alpha 0.05
1-alpha 0.95

Null hypothesis
H1
sample mean 3.4
standdard deviation 0.6
SE 0.2
t0 0.9
4.5
p-value 0.001001
Mu<=2.5
M>2.5

This company is not following protocol it should take some measure to reduce
M not equal to 1.84
H0 M=1.84
H1 M notequal to 1.84
Alpha 0.1
1-Alpha 0.9
sample mean 1.87
n 12
standard deviation 0.011
SE 0.00317542648
t0 9.44754985947
P-value 0.000001301 since it is very less than alpha it is not tolerable
t is not tolerable
n 50
sample mean 8.159
satndard deviation 0.051
H0 M=8.17
H1 M not equal to 8.17
alpha 0.05
1-alpha 0.95
SE 0.0072124891681028
t0 -1.52513227314735
p-value 0.133655192440088
n 64
sample mean 3.57
satndard deviation 0.8
H0 M<=3.7
H1 M>3.7
alpha 0.05
1-alpha 0.95
SE 0.1
t0 -1.3
p-value 0.199683131920554
 n 560
1-sample proportion p(population proportion) 0.53
sample proportion 0.47
Alpha 0.95
1-Alpha 0.05
SE 0.021091
Z-alpha/2 -1.959964 1.95996 we have taken alpha/2
ME 0.041337

LL 0.428663
UL 0.511337
aken alpha/2
Population mean Peoria Evansville
population standad dev sigma1 sigma2

n 21 26
sample mean 116900 114000
std dev 2300 1750

MU!=MU2
research hypothesis MAYBE THERE IS A difference
MU=MU2!=0

null hypothesis MU1-Mu2=0

Alternative MU1-Mu2!=0

alpha 0.1
1-alpha 0.9

student-t distribution

ASSumptions
1 Both the population variance are equal
2 Both the population follow normal distribution
3 Both are sample random

((n1-1)*s1^2+(n2-1)*s2^2)/(n1+n2-2)
S^2 4052500

S 2013.08221391974
SE S*sqrt((1/n1)+(1/n2))
590.628119116907
df n1+n2-2 21+26-2
UNDER H0
t0 (Sample mean1-sample mean2)/SE
4.91002697998194

Alternative Mu1-Mu2!=0
Two tailed test
p-value 0.000012405 less than alpha
There is a significant difference betwe
YBE THERE IS A difference

45

re is a significant difference between the two location

Co-op students Interns
$15.34 $15.10 Population mean
$14.75 $14.45 population standad dev
$15.88 $16.21
$16.92 $14.91 n
$16.84 $13.80 sample mean
$17.37 $16.02 std dev
$14.05 $16.25 variance(S^2)
$15.41 $15.89
$16.74 $13.99
$14.55 $16.48
$15.25 $15.75
$14.64 $16.42 null hypothesis
Alternative

S^2(combined variance)

S
SE
t0
p-value
Co-op Intern
sigma1 sigma2

21 26
$15.65 $15.44
1.09303164721713 0.957966201086574
1.19471818181818 0.917699242424243
MU!=MU2
research hypothesis MAYBE THERE IS A difference in an average hourly rate
MU=MU2!=0

MU1-Mu2=0
MU1-Mu2!=0

((n1-1)*s1^2+(n2-1)*s2^2)/(n1+n2-2)
1.05620871212121
1.0277201526297
0.419564995386335
$0.49
0.629057518152033 it is very high than alpha.so null hypothesis is not rejected.
more than alpha the payment are same for both
both the position will be filled easily
there will be big brand name,as they paid both the co-op and intern equally
op and intern equally
n 40
sample mean 5
sample std 2.3
alpha 0.05
1-alpha 0.95
SE 0.363661930919364

null hypothesis Mm-Mn<=0 Md<=0

Under H0
t0 13.7490333050799

Alternative Hypothesis Md>0

Right-tailed test
P-value 0.00000000000000007689000 As p-value is less than a
As p-value is less than alpha null hypothesis is rejected
 15
-8
32 n 25
57 alpha 0.05
20 1-alpha 0.95
10 sample mean 19.08
-18 sample std 30.67154
-12 SE 6.134308
60
72 Under H0
38 t0 (sample difference-hypothetical difference)/SE
-5 3.110375
16
22 Null hypothesis Md<=0
34 alternative hypothesis Md>0
41 Right tailed test 0.0023836
12
-38 p-value 0.002384
16
-40
75 Alpha Rejection region AS p-value is less than alpha nul
11 1-alpha Non-rejection region
2
55
10
 As Mun-Mur=0, So we have to take assume that norelco is greater.

difference)/SE

AS p-value is less than alpha null hypothesis is rejected.This means there is a significat level of satisfaction between two brand no
,
STORE BEFORE AFTER Difference (BEFORE-AFTER)
1 57 60 -3 n
2 61 54 7 before
3 12 20 -8 after
4 38 35 3
5 12 21 -9 Mu1-Mu2<0
6 69 70 -1 Mu1-Mu2>=0
7 5 1 4
8 39 65 -26 Null hypothesis
9 88 79 9 under H0
10 9 10 -1 t0
11 92 90 2
12 26 32 -6 Alternative hypothesis
13 14 19 -5 Mu1-Mu2<0
14 70 77 -7 p-value
15 22 29 -7
sample mean -3.2
sample std 8.43631605450084
SE 2.17824743882827
 15 alpha 0.05
Mu1 1-alpha 0.95
Mu2

Mu1-Mu2>=0

-1.469071

0.081962 AS p-value is greater than alpha then it is rejected

M:1 17 25 17 14 18 17 16 14
5
C: 9 21 16 11 12 13 15
10

M C difference
15 10 5
17 9 8
25 21 4
17 16 1
14 11 3
18 12 6
17 13 4
16 15 1
14 13 1

3.666667

2.44949
13
alpha 0.05
1-alpha 0.95
n 9
Md= 0
Md not equal to 0

SE 0.816497

t0 4.490731

p-value 0.002027 As p-value is less than alpha then it is rejected

City Cost resale difference n 11
Atlanta 20,427 25,163 -4,736 alpha 0.01
boston 27,255 24,625 2,630 1-alpha 0.99
Des Moines 22,115 12,600 9,515
Kansas city, MO 23,256 24,588 -1,332
Louisville 21,887 19,267 2,620 c-r means cost less than re
Portland,OR 24,255 20,150 4,105
raleigh-Durham 19,852 22,500 -2,648
Reno 23,624 16,667 6,957
Ridgewood 25,885 26,875 -990
San Francisco 28,999 35,333 -6,334
Tulsa 20,836 16,292 4,544

1,303
4938.219595

SE 1488.92923

H0 MD<=0
alternative MD>0

t0 0.875003429

p-value 0.201049523 As p-value is greater than alpha then it is not rejected

c-r means cost less than remodelling

s not rejected
Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average
prototype A 10 44070 4407
Prototype B 10 42300 4230
prototype C 10 41350 4135

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS
Between Groups 381126.666667 2 190563.33
Within Groups 248460 27 9202.2222
Total 629586.666667 29
 prototype A Prototype B prototype C
4,420 4230 4110
4540 4220 4090
4380 4100 4070
4550 4300 4160
4210 4420 4230
4330 4110 4120
4400 4230 4000
4340 4280 4200
4390 4090 4150
4510 4320 4220
H0 M1=M2=M3
H1 someone is not equal to

alpha 0.05
1-alpha 0.95
Variance
11023.333
11400
5183.3333

F P-value F crit
20.708404 0.00000353763 3.3541308285
 U.K. MEXICO U.A.E OMAN
62.1 56.3 55.6 53.11
63.2 59.45 54.22 52.9
55.8 60.02 53.18 53.75
56.9 60 56.12 54.1
61.2 58.75 60.01 59.03
60.18 59.13 53.2 52.35
60.9 53.3 54 52.8
61.12 60.17 55.19 54.95

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
U.K. 8 481.4 60.175 6.4559714286
MEXICO 8 467.12 58.39 5.7849142857
U.A.E 8 441.52 55.19 4.9460857143
OMAN 8 432.99 54.12375 4.6168553571

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F
Between Groups 188.46371 3 62.821236458 11.524809305
Within Groups 152.62679 28 5.4509566964

Total 341.0905 31

As p-value is less then alpha so the market is efficient.

PAIR-WISE COMPARISION

Uk-M 1.785 <T Here exits no difference

UK-UAE 4.985 >T Here exists difference
UK-OMAN 6.05125 >T
M-UAE 3.2 T
M-OMAN 4.26625 >T
 UAE-OMAN 1.06625 <T

T q0*sqrt(WGV/min(samplesizes))
q0 3.861
sqrt(WGV/min(sample sizes)) 0.8254511
 Research hypothesis may be the market is inefficient
Null hypothesis market is efficient that means all the locations ave

H1 At least one location the average price is significan

Alpha 0.05
1-Alpha 0.95
Assumptions All the population variance are equal.
ALL the samples follow normal distribution.
All the samples are random

P-value F crit
0.0000426594 2.946685266

K 4
K-N 28

re exits no difference
re exists difference
3.1870668574
e market is inefficient
at means all the locations average pricing is the same.

the average price is significantly different.

riance are equal.

ow normal distribution.
HIGH MEDIUM LOW
3.5 3 1
4.8 5.5 2.5
3 6 2
6.5 4 1.5
7.5 4 1.5
8 4.5 6
2 6 3.8
6 2 4.5
5.5 9 0.5
6.5 4.5 2
7 5 3.5
9 2.5 1
5 7 2
10
6

Anova: Single Factor

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
HIGH 15 90.3 6.02 4.7631428571
MEDIUM 13 63 4.846154 3.641025641
LOW 13 31.8 2.446154 2.5126923077

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F
Between Groups 91.042604128 2 45.5213 12.30930422
Within Groups 140.52861538 38 3.698121

Total 231.57121951 40
 h0 m1=M2=M3
H1 ANY ONE IS NOT EQUAL

ALPHA 0.5
1-ALPHA 0.95
N 41
N-K 38
0.6201736729
T q0*sqrt(WGV/min(samplesizes)) 2.138979
q0 3.449
Pair-wise comparision
H-M 1.1738 <T
H-L 3.5738 >T
M-L 2.4 >T

P-value F crit
0.00007560 3.2448183607