Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUBMITTED BY
Problem 1
A physiotherapist with a male football team is interested in studying the relationship
between foot injuries and the positions at which the players play from the data collected
1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an
injury?
Ans. The data collected from the male football team indicates that out of 235 players,
145 players have suffered injuries, while the rest have not. To determine the probability
that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury, we use the following formula:
By substituting the values from the given data into the formula, we find that the
probability of a player suffering an injury is approximately 61.70%.
Ans. The data collected from the male football team shows that there are 94 players
in the forward position and 29 players in the winger position. To find the probability of
a player being a forward or a winger, we add the number of players in these positions
and divide it by the total number of players:
By substituting the values from the given data into the formula, we find that the
probability of a player being a forward or a winger is approximately 52.34%.
6
Ans. Based on the data collected, there are 45 players who are both strikers and
injured. To calculate the probability of a randomly chosen player being a striker and
injured, we divide the number of such players by the total number of players.
After performing the calculation with the given data, we find that the probability
of a randomly chosen player being a striker and injured is approximately 19.15%.
1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker?
Ans. Based on the data collected, there are 45 injured players who are strikers. To
calculate the probability of a randomly chosen injured player being a striker, we divide
the number of injured players who are strikers by the total number of injured players.
After performing the calculation with the given data, we find that the probability
of a randomly chosen injured player being a striker is approximately 31.03%.
1.5 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is either a
forward or an attacking midfielder?
Ans. Based on the data collected, there are 56 injured players who are forwards and
24 injured players who are attacking midfielders. To calculate the probability of a
randomly chosen injured player being either a forward or an attacking midfielder, we
add the number of injured players who are forwards to the number of injured players
who are attacking midfielders, and then divide it by the total number of injured players.
After performing the calculation with the given data, we find that the probability
of a randomly chosen injured player being either a forward or an attacking
midfielder is approximately 55.17%.
7
2.1 What are the probabilities of a fire, a mechanical failure, and a human
error respectively?
Ans. Based on the given information about the probabilities of radiation leaks for each
type of accident (Fire – 20%, Mechanical Failure – 50% & Human Error – 10%) and
the probabilities of radiation leaks occurring simultaneously with different types of
accidents (Fire – 0.1%, Mechanical Failure – 0.15% & Human Error – 0.12%), we
calculated the probabilities of all types of errors by using the formula:-
Ans. To calculate the probability of a radiation leak (P(R)), we can use the formula:
(b) Understanding this probability is crucial for assessing the potential risks
associated with different types of accidents and taking appropriate preventive
measures to ensure the safety of the nuclear power plant and its surroundings.
By quantifying the probability of radiation leakage, the organization can make
informed decisions and implement necessary protocols to minimize the impact
of such incidents.
2.3 Suppose there has been a radiation leak in the reactor for which the
definite cause is not known. What is the probability that it has been caused by:
• A Fire.
Ans. The probability of a Fire radiation can be calculated using the formula
(a) By applying the formula, where P(F/R) represents the probability of a fire
causing the radiation leak and P(R) is the overall probability of a radiation leak,
the organization determined that the probability of the radiation leak being
caused by a fire is 27.03%.
• A Mechanical Failure.
• A Human Error.
Ans. (a) Utilizing the equation P(H/R) = P(R ∩ H) / P(R), where P(H/R)
denotes the probability of human error causing the radiation leak and
P(R) represents the overall probability of a radiation leak, the research
organization has determined that the probability of the radiation leak
being a result of human error is 32.43%.
3.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than
3.17 kg per sq cm?
Ans. To calculate the probability directly, we can use the cumulative distribution
function (CDF) of the normal distribution. The CDF gives us the probability that a
random variable is less than or equal to a certain value.
Figure 1: CDF
(b) The probability curve in the image shows the Cumulative Distribution
Function (CDF) of the strength of gunny bags. The CDF shows the probability
that a gunny bag will break with a given breaking strength or less (3.17 kg per
sq cm). The x-axis of the graph shows the breaking strength of the gunny bag,
and the y-axis shows the probability of the gunny bag breaking at that breaking
strength.
(c) The curve reaches a maximum point at a breaking strength of 3.17 kg/sq
cm. This means that there is a 90% chance of the gunny bag breaking if its
breaking strength is 3.17 kg/sq cm. After this point, the probability of the gunny
bag breaking starts to decrease as the breaking strength continues to increase.
Hence, the CDF shows that 11.12% of the gunny bags will have a breaking
strength of 3.17 kg/sq cm or less. This means that 11.12% of the gunny bags
are at risk of breaking and causing wastage or pilferage.
11
Ans. The code generated a probability distribution plot with the shaded area
representing the proportion of gunny bags with a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per
sq cm. The vertical line indicates the breaking strength value of interest, and the
percentage of bags with strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm is displayed on the plot. As
per the plot, the proportions of gunny bags having a breaking strength of at least 3.6
kg per sq cm is 82.4%.
Figure 2 : CDF
Insights.
(b) In the CDF above, the red line intersects the y-axis at 0.8238, which
means that 82.38% of the gunny bags will have a breaking strength of at
least 3.6 kg per cm sq.
3.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5
and 5.5 kg per sq cm.?
Ans. To find the proportion of gunny bags with a breaking strength between 5 and
5.5 kg per sq cm, we need to calculate the area under the probability distribution curve
between these two values. We have used the cumulative distribution function (CDF) to
do this. The CDF gives us the probability that a random variable (in this case, breaking
strength) is less than or equal to a given value which in this case works out to be
13.06%.
Figure 3 : CDF
12
3.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT
between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm.?
Ans. By calculating the cumulative distribution function (CDF) within the specified
bounds and subtracting it from 1, the organization has determined that approximately
13.90% of gunny bags possess breaking strengths either below 3 kg per sq. centimeter
or above 7.5 kg per sq. centimeter. This insight enables the organization to assess the
extent of variation in breaking strengths and make informed decisions pertaining to
wastage, quality control, and supply chain efficiency.
Figure 4 : CDF
(b) The plot shows the probability distribution of the breaking strength of
gunny bags. The mean breaking strength is 5 kg per sq. centimeter and the
standard deviation is 1.5 kg per sq. centimeter. The shaded area in the plot
represents the proportion of gunny bags that have a breaking strength NOT
between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm which is equal to 13.90%.
(c) The quality team of the cement company should be concerned about this
proportion not between 3 and 7.5 Kgs. It is possible that these gunny bags are
not strong enough to withstand the weight of the cement, or that they are too
strong and could cause damage to the cement. The quality team should
investigate the cause of these outliers and take steps to reduce their number.
13
4.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade
below 85 on this exam?
Ans. (a) To determine the probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade
below 85, we utilize the concept of z-score. The z-score measures how many standard
deviations a particular grade is away from the mean.
z = (X - μ) / σ
(c) Next, we utilize the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the standard
normal distribution to find the probability associated with this z-score. Since the
CDF provides the probability of a value being less than or equal to a given z-
score, we subtract the CDF value from 1 to obtain the probability of a grade
exceeding the z-score.
Figure 5 : CDF
(a) The shaded area under the curve to the left of the vertical line represents
the probability that a randomly chosen student will get a grade below 85. This
area is equal to 17.33%. This means that there is a 17.33% chance that a
randomly chosen student will get a grade below 85 on this exam.
14
Ans. (a) In the code, we calculated the z-scores for the lower and upper bounds
of the score range (65 and 87) using the formula
z = (X - μ) / σ
where X is the value, μ is the mean, and σ is the standard deviation
(b) Use the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of the normal distribution
to calculate the probabilities corresponding to the z-scores. This gives us the
probability that a randomly selected student's score is below a certain value.
(c) The probability that a student's score falls within the specified range
(between 65 and 87) is the difference between their respective probabilities.
Figure 6 : CDF
(d) The shaded area between the vertical lines at 65 and 87 represents the
probability that a randomly selected student will get a grade between 65 and 87.
This area is equal to 80.13%. This means that there is an 80.13% chance that
a randomly selected student will get a grade between 65 and 87 on this
exam.
4.3 What should be the passing cut-off so that 75% of the students clear the
exam?
Ans. (a) To find the passing cut-off score that ensures 75% of the students clear
the exam, we used the Percent-Point Function (PPF), also known as the
quantile function.
(b) The stats.norm.ppf() function was used to calculate the passing cut-off
score at 75 percentile for a normal distribution. We then provided the loc
(location or mean) and scale (standard deviation) parameters to the ppf()
functionto help understand the distribution's characteristics.
15
Figure 7 : CDF
(c) The plot shows the probability distribution of grades for the final
examination in a training course. The mean grade is 77 and the standard
deviation is 8.5. The vertical line at 82.73 represents the passing cut-off for
75% of the students to clear the exam.
16
5.1 Earlier experience of Zingaro with this particular client is favorable as the
stone surface was found to be of adequate hardness. However, Zingaro has
reason to believe now that the unpolished stones may not be suitable for
printing. Do you think Zingaro is justified in thinking so?
Ans. To determine whether Zingaro is justified in thinking that unpolished stones may
not be suitable for printing, we need to perform a hypothesis test.
Figure 8 : HISTPLOT
(c) As the value of P-Value is < Significance value, we fail to reject H0 and
hence, it appears that Zingaro is justified in thinking that the hardness of
unpolished stones has decreased.
17
Ans. (a) To test whether the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished
stones is the same, we need to perform a hypothesis test to compare the means
of two independent samples. In this case, we can use a two-sample t-test with
significance level = 0.05 (5%).
Figure 9 : HISTPLOT
(c) As the value of P-Value is < Significance value, we fail to reject H0 and
hence, it appears that the mean hardness of polished stones is not equal
to the mean hardness of unpolished stones.
18
Ans. (a) In the context of Aquarius health club's program for body conditioning,
we are interested in determining whether the program has led to a statistically
significant improvement in the ability of participants to do push-ups. The program is
considered successful if participants can do more than 5 push-ups compared to when
they enrolled.
Figure 10 : HISTPLOT
7.1 Test whether there is any difference among the dentists on the implant
hardness. State the null and alternative hypotheses. Note that both types of
alloys cannot be considered together. You must state the null and alternative
hypotheses separately for the two types of alloys.?
Ans. To test the hypotheses for both alloys, we can perform a two-way ANOVA
(Analysis of Variance) test. The two-way ANOVA is particularly useful when we want
to analyze the impact of multiple categorical independent variables (in this case,
"Dentist" and "Alloy") on a continuous dependent variable (in this case, "Response").To
test whether there is any difference among the dentists on the implant hardness for
each type of alloy, we can use a two-way ANOVA test. Since we need to consider two
types of alloys separately, we will perform two separate two-way ANOVA tests.
(b) Alloy 1.
(c) Alloy 2.
7.2 Before the hypotheses may be tested, state the required assumptions. Are
the assumptions fulfilled? Comment separately on both alloy types.?
Ans. (a) Before performing a two-way ANOVA test, it's important to consider and
assess the assumptions associated with the test. The key assumptions for a two-way
ANOVA include:
Figure 11 : QQ PLOT
21
Figure 12 : BOXPLOT
22
Figure 13 : BOXPLOT
(iii) Independence.
(c) Alloy 1.
(d) Alloy 2.
7.4 Now test whether there is any difference among the methods on the
hardness of dental implant, separately for the two types of alloys. What are your
conclusions? If the null hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify which
pairs of methods differ?
Ans. (a) To test whether there is any difference among the methods on the
hardness of dental implant for the two types of alloys, we used a one-way
ANOVA.
26
Null Hypothesis. H0: Mean Hardness is same across all dentists for
Alloy 1.
Alternate Hypothesis: Ha: Mean Hardness is not same for at least one
pair of dentists for Alloy 1.
(c) Alloy 2.
Alternate Hypothesis: Ha: Mean Hardness is not same for at least one
pair of dentists for Alloy 2.
7.5 Now test whether there is any difference among the temperature levels on
the hardness of dental implant, separately for the two types of alloys. What are
your conclusions? If the null hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify
which levels of temperatures differ?
Ans. (a) In order to test whether there is any difference among the temperature
levels on the hardness of dental implants, you would need to perform an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the temperature factor, separately for the two
types of alloys.
29
Null Hypothesis (H0). The mean hardness is the same across all
temperature levels for Alloy 1.
(i) The output of the one-way ANOVA test for Alloy 1 shows that the
F-statistic is 0.335224, and the p-value is 0.717074.
(ii) Since the p-value is greater than the typical significance level of
0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude that
there is no statistically significant difference among the temperature
levels regarding the hardness of dental implants for Alloy 1.
(c) Alloy 2.
Null Hypothesis (H0). The mean hardness is the same across all
temperature levels for Alloy 2.
(i) The output of the one-way ANOVA test for Alloy 1 shows that the
F-statistic is 1.883492, and the p-value is 0.164678.
(ii) Since the p-value is greater than the typical significance level of
0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis. This means that there is no
statistically significant evidence to conclude that temperature levels have
an effect on the hardness of dental implants for Alloy 2. The difference in
hardness among the temperature levels could be due to random chance.
7.6 Consider the interaction effect of dentist and method and comment on the
interaction plot, separately for the two types of alloys?
Ans. (a) In order to understand the interaction effect between dentists and
methods, we want to look at a plot showing this interaction. The interaction plot
was generated by plotting the mean response at each combination of dentist
and method levels, with lines connecting the means for each level of one factor,
typically with different line styles or colors for each level of the other factor. This
allows us to visually assess how the effects of one factor depends on the level
of the other factor.
(b) Alloy 1.
(iii) Interaction Effect. The most interesting part of this output is the
interaction term (p-value = 0.006793). The interaction effect between the
dentist and the method is significant. This means that the effect of one of
these variables on the response is not the same at all levels of the other
variable.
(iv) Conclusion. The results strongly suggest that not only do the
dentist and method matter individually, but the combination in which they
are used together also matters. This might imply that training or
guidelines should consider the specific combination of dentist and
method, rather than treating them independently
(i) The points for each dentist are not all clustered together. This
means that there is variation in the hardness of the implants produced by
each dentist, even when using the same method. This variation is likely
due to factors such as the experience of the dentist, the technique used,
and the quality of the materials used.
(ii) The lines on the plot also show that there is an interaction effect
between dentist and method. This means that the effect of the dentist on
implant hardness depends on the method used. For example, dentist 1
produces implants with the highest hardness when using method 1, but
the lowest hardness when using method 2. This suggests that dentist 1
is more experienced or skilled in using method 1 than method 2.
(iii) Overall, the interaction plot shows that the hardness of the
implant is affected by both the dentist and the method used. There
is also an interaction effect between dentist and method, meaning that
the effect of the dentist on implant hardness depends on the method
used. This suggests that it is important to consider both the dentist and
the method when choosing a treatment for a dental implant.
32
(i) Dentist Effect. The p-value for the dentist effect is 0.371833,
which is greater than the typical significance level of 0.05. This means
that there's insufficient evidence to suggest that the different dentists
have a different effect on the response for Alloy 2. Hence, we fail to reject
the null hypothesis that all dentists have the same effect.
(ii) Method Effect. On the other hand, the p-value for the method
effect is very low (0.000004), providing strong evidence that the method
does significantly affect the response. The choice of method matters for
Alloy 2, and different methods will lead to different responses.
(ii) The interaction effect between dentist and method is not as strong
for alloy 2 as it is for alloy 1. This suggests that the effect of the dentist
on implant hardness is not as dependent on the method used for alloy 2.
For example, dentist 1 produces implants with the highest hardness for
both methods for alloy 2, while for alloy 1, dentist 1 produced implants
with the highest hardness only when using method A.
(iii) Overall, the interaction plot for alloy 2 shows that the hardness of
the implant is affected by both the dentist and the method used. However,
the interaction effect between dentist and method is not as strong for alloy
2 as it is for alloy 1. This suggests that it is less important to consider the
dentist when choosing a treatment for a dental implant with alloy 2.
7.7 Now consider the effect of both factors, dentist, and method, separately
on each alloy. What do you conclude? Is it possible to identify which dentists
are different, which methods are different, and which interaction levels are
different?
Ans. (a) Alloy 1. The two-way ANOVA will test these hypotheses by
considering the main effects of the dentists and methods and their interaction. If any of
the p-values associated with these effects are less than the significance level (e.g.,
0.05), the corresponding null hypothesis would be rejected.
Null Hypothesis.
Dentists. The mean hardness is the same across all dentists for
Alloy 1.
Methods. The mean hardness is the same across all methods for
Alloy 1.
Interaction (Dentist*Method). There is no interaction effect between
dentists and methods on the hardness for Alloy 1.
Dentists. The mean hardness is not the same for at least one pair of
dentists for Alloy 1.
Methods. The mean hardness is not the same for at least one pair of
methods for Alloy 1.
Interaction (Dentist*Method). There is an interaction effect between
dentists and methods on the hardness for Alloy 1.
34
(v) Conclusion.
• This suggests that the choice of both the dentist and the
method needs to be carefully considered when working with Alloy
1. Specific combinations of dentist and method may yield optimal
results, and understanding this interaction could be key to
maximizing implant hardness. It highlights the importance of
comprehensive training and clear guidelines for best practices with
this alloy.
35
(b) Alloy 2.. The two-way ANOVA will test these hypotheses by
considering the main effects of the dentists and methods and their interaction.
If any of the p-values associated with these effects are less than the significance
level (e.g., 0.05), the corresponding null hypothesis would be rejected.
Null Hypothesis.
Dentists. The mean hardness is the same across all dentists for
Alloy 2.
Methods. The mean hardness is the same across all methods for
Alloy 2.
Interaction (Dentist*Method). There is no interaction effect between
dentists and methods on the hardness for Alloy 2.
Dentists. The mean hardness is not the same for at least one pair of
dentists for Alloy 2.
Methods. The mean hardness is not the same for at least one pair of
methods for Alloy 2.
Interaction (Dentist*Method). There is an interaction effect between
dentists and methods on the hardness for Alloy 2.
37
(v) Conclusion.