Solution For Project

ADVANCED STATISTICS
saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com
BUSINESS REPORT
8KBJP7L0VE
This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Table of Contents:
Problem -1 .............................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury? .............................. 4
1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger? ....................................................... 4
1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and has a foot
injury? ................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker? .................................... 4
1.5 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is either a forward or an attacking
midfielder? .......................................................................................................................................... 4
Problem-2 ............................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 What are the probabilities of a fire, a mechanical failure and a human error respectively? ............ 5
2.2 What is the probability of a radiation leak? .................................................................................... 5
2.3 Suppose there has been a radiation leak in the reactor for which the definite cause is not known.
8KBJP7L0VE What is the probability that it has been caused by; .............................................................................. 6
Problem-3 ............................................................................................................................................... 6
3.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm?............ 6
3.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm.? ............... 7
3.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5 kg per sq cm.? ... 7
3.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq
cm.? .................................................................................................................................................... 8
Problem-4 ............................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade below 85 on this exam? ....... 9
4.2 What is the probability that a randomly selected student scores between 65 and 87? ................. 10
4.3 What should be the passing cut-off so that 75% of the students clear the exam? ......................... 11
Problem-5 ............................................................................................................................................. 11
5.1 Earlier experience of Zingaro with this particular client is favourable 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? ................... 11
5.2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the same? ...................................... 12
Problem-6 ............................................................................................................................................. 13
6.1 Aquarius Health club: ................................................................................................................... 13

Problem- 7 ............................................................................................................................................ 14
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…………………………………………………..15
7.2 Before the hypotheses may be tested, state the required assumptions. Are the assumptions fulfilled?
Comment separately on both alloy types………………………………………………………………………………………………..17
Irrespective of your conclusion in 6.4, we will continue with the testing procedure.
7.3 What do you conclude regarding whether implant hardness depends on dentists? Clearly state your
conclusion. If the null hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify which pairs of dentists differ?.......18
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?....................................................................................19
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?......................................................20
7.6 Consider interaction effect of dentist and method and comment on the interaction plot, separately for
the two types of alloys……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………22
7.7 Now consider 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
8KBJP7L0VE interaction levels are different?...................................................................................................................23

Table of Figures:
Figure 1 Green Area indicates required probability-------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
Figure 2 Required probability indicated by green shaded area. ----------------------------------------------------- 7
Figure 3 Required Probability indicated by the green shaded region. --------------------------------------------- 8
Figure 4 Green shaded area indicates the required probability. ---------------------------------------------------- 9
Figure 5 Green region indicates required probability --------------------------------------------------------------- 10
Figure 6 Required probability given by the green shaded area---------------------------------------------------- 10
Figure 7 Green shaded area shows 75% of the students having more marks than the cut off indicated by
the line ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11
Figure 8 Interaction Plot Alloy 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19
Figure 8 Interaction Plot Alloy 2---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20
8KBJP7L0VE

Problem-1
A physiotherapist with a male football team is interested in studying the relationship between foot
injuries and positions at which the players play. The data collected is summarized in the table below,
Answer the questions based on the table.
Striker Forward Attacking Midfielder Winger Total

Players Injured 45 56 24 20 145
Players Not Injured 32 38 11 9 90
Total 77 94 35 29 235
1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury?
From the given table we can see that the, number of players injured is 145, and the total number of
players is 235. Hence the probability that a randomly chosen player is injured is;
P (Injured) = 145/235 = 0.617
1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger?

Total number of players that are forwards or wingers is 123 (94 + 29), and total number of players under
study is 235. Hence, the probability that a randomly chosen player is a forward or a winger is;
P (Forward OR Winger) = (94+29)/235 = 0.523

8KBJP7L0VE
1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position
and has a foot injury?
Note that this is a joint probability problem, where two conditions are being satisfied simultaneously.
The number of players who have a foot injury and who play in striker position is 45. The total number of
players under consideration is 235. Hence the probability that a player is a striker and is injured is;
P (Striker AND Injured) = 45/235 = 0.1914
1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker?
Note that this is a conditional probability problem, because not all players and considered. Given that
the chosen player is injured we need to find the probability that he is a striker. Since there are 145
injured players. The conditional probability is;
P (Striker|Injured) = 45/145 = 0.310
1.5 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is either a
forward or an attacking midfielder?
Again, this is a conditional probability problem. Given that the player is injured the probability is;

P (Forward OR Attacking Midfielder|Injured) = (56+24)/145 = 0.5517
Problem-2
An independent research organization is trying to estimate the probability that an accident at a nuclear
power plant will result in radiation leakage. The types of accidents possible at the plant are, fire hazard,
mechanical failure or human error. The research organization also knows that, two or more types of
accidents cannot occur simultaneously.
According to the studies carried out by the organization, the probability of a radiation leak in case of a
fire is 20%, the probability of a radiation leak in case of a mechanical 50% and the probability of a
radiation leak in case of a human error is 10%. The studies also showed the following;
 The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a fire is 0.1%.
 The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a mechanical failure is 0.15%.
 The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a human error is 0.12%.
On the basis of the information available, answer the questions below;
2.1 What are the probabilities of a fire, a

saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com mechanical failure and a human error
8KBJP7L0VE
respectively?
According to the information available, probability of a fire is;
P (Fire) = P (Radiation Leak AND Fire)/ P (Radiation Leak | Fire) = 0.001/0.2 = 0.005
According to the information available, probability of a mechanical failure is;
P (Mechanical Failure) = P (Radiation Leak AND Mechanical Failure)/ P (Radiation Leak

|Mechanical Failure) = 0.0015/0.5 = 0.003
According to the information available the probability of a human error is;
P (Human Error) = P (Radiation Leak AND Human Error)/ P (Radiation Leak | Human Error)
= 0.0012/0.1 = 0.012
2.2 What is the probability of a radiation leak?

According to the given information;
P (Radiation Leak) = P (Radiation Leak AND Fire) + P (Radiation Leak AND Mechanical
failure) + P (Radiation Leak AND Human error) = 0.001 + 0.0015 + 0.0012 = 0.0037

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;
1. A Fire
2. A Mechanical Failure
3. A Human Error.
P (Fire|Radiation Leak) = P (Fire and Radiation Leak)/P (Radiation Leak) = 0.001/0.0037 =

0.2703.
P (Mechanical Failure | Radiation Leak) = P (Mechanical Failure and Radiation Leak)/P
(Radiation Leak) = 0.0015/0.0037 = 0.4054.
P (Human Error | Radiation Leak) = P (Human Error and Radiation Leak)/P (Radiation Leak
= 0.0012/0.0037 = 0.3243.
Problem-3
8KBJP7L0VE
The breaking strength of gunny bags used for packaging cement is normally distributed with a
mean of 5 kg per sq. centimetre and standard deviation of 1.5 kg per sq. centimetre. The quality
team of the cement company wants to know the following about the packaging material to better
understand wastage or pilferage within the supply chain; Answer the questions below based on
the given information; (Provide appropriate visual representation of your answers, without
which marks will be deducted)
3.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg
per sq cm?
Using the mean and the standard deviation of the normal distribution, we need to find the probability
of a gunny bag having a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm.(cumulative probability
calculated using stats.norm.cdf function).
P (Breaking strength < 3.17) = 0.1112

Figure 1 Green Area indicates required probability
3.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg
per sq cm.?
of a gunny bag having a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm.
saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com P (Breaking strength > 3.6) = 1 - 0.1753 = 0.8247

8KBJP7L0VE
(Cumulative probability calculated using stats.norm.cdf function).
Figure 2 Required probability indicated by green shaded area.
3.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and
5.5 kg per sq cm.?
of a gunny bag having a breaking strength between 5kg per sq cm and 5.5 kg per sq cm.

P (5 < Breaking strength < 5.5) = 0.6306 – 0.5 = 0.1306
Figure 3 Required Probability indicated by the green shaded region.

8KBJP7L0VE
3.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between 3
and 7.5 kg per sq cm.?
of a gunny bag having a breaking strength.
P ([Breaking strength < 3] or [Breaking strength > 7.5)

= P (Breaking strength < 3) + P (Breaking strength > 7.5)
= 0.0912 + (1 – 0.9522) = 0.0912 + 0.0478 = 0.1390
Another way of arriving at the same solution is to compute
1 – P (3 < Breaking strength < 7.5)

Figure 4 Green shaded area indicates the required probability.
8KBJP7L0VE
Problem-4
Grades of final examination in a training course are found to be normally distributed, with a mean of
77 and a standard deviation of 8.5. Based on the given information answer the questions below.
4.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade below 85
on this exam?
P (Grade < 85) = 0.8267

Figure 5 Green region indicates required probability
4.2 What is the probability that a randomly selected student scores between 65
and 87?
Using stats.norm.cdf function. It can be represented visually as below;
P (65 < Grade < 87) = P (Grade < 87) – P (Grade < 65) = 0.8803 – 0.0790 = 0.8013
8KBJP7L0VE
Figure 6 Required probability given by the green shaded area

4.3 What should be the passing cut-off so that 75% of the students clear the exam?
In this case we want the inverse normal function. Using the stats.norm.ppf function the cut-off
grade is 71.27.
Figure 7 Green shaded area shows 75% of the students having more marks than the cut off indicated by the line
8KBJP7L0VE
Problem-5
Zingaro stone printing is a company which specialises in printing images or patterns on polished or
unpolished stones. However, for optimum level of printing of the image the stone surface has to
have a Brinell's hardness index of at least 150. Recently, Zingaro has received a batch of polished
and unpolished stones from its clients. Use the data provided to answer the following (assuming 5%
significance level);
5.1 Earlier experience of Zingaro with this particular client is favourable 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?
The hypothesis test is formulated as below,
H0 = The population mean BHI for unpolished stones is at least 150 or (µu ≥ 150)

H1 = The population mean BHI for unpolished stones is at least 150 or (µu < 150)
Looking at the Hypothesis formulation, it can be observed that this is a left tailed test with a Level
of Significance 0.05 (α = 5%).
Output -
As observed above, since the numerical value of the test statistic is smaller than the critical
value, the P-value is smaller than the level of significance. Hence, the Null Hypothesis that the
unpolished stone surfaces have an average BHI of at least 150 is rejected.
Zingero is justified in concluding that the unpolished stones are not suitable for optimal level of
printing.
5.2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the same?
H0: The population mean BHI for Polished stones and Unpolished stones is equal
(µp = µu) or (µp - µu =0)
8KBJP7L0VE H1: The population mean BHI for Polished stones and Unpolished stones is not equal
(µp ≠ µu) or (µp - µu ≠ 0)
Note that this is a two-tailed test with a Level of Significance of 0.05 (α = 5%).
Output -
Note that the test statistic is larger than the upper critical value and hence the P-value is smaller
than the level of significance. The Null Hypothesis that the polished stone surfaces have a BHI equal
to that of the unpolished stones will be rejected.
Average hardness of the polished and the unpolished stones is not equal.

Problem-6
6.1 Aquarius Health club:

6.1 Aquarius health club, one of the largest and most popular cross-fit gyms in the country has been
advertising a rigorous program for body conditioning. The program is considered successful if
the candidate is able to do more than 5 push-ups, as compared to when he/she enrolled in the
program. Using the sample data provided can you conclude whether the program is successful?
(Consider level of Significance as 5%)
Note that this is a problem of paired-t test. Since the claim is that the training will make a
difference of more than 5, the null and alternative hypotheses must be formed accordingly.
H0 = The mean number of push ups being done after the training (µA) is 5 or less than the
mean number of push ups being done before the program (µB) (µA - µB ≤ 5)
H1 = The mean number of push ups being done after the training (µA) is 5 or less than the
mean number of push ups being done before the program (µB) (µA - µB > 5)
This is a right-tailed test with a Level of Significance of 0.05 (α = 5%).
8KBJP7L0VE
Table 1 Taking the difference between Before and After
Considering the Difference column, the Hypothesis can be re-formulated in terms of the difference.
H0 = µD ≤ 5
H1 = µD > 5
Output -
It is clear that the gym’s program is successful.

Problem- 7
7.1 Dental implant data: The hardness of metal implant in dental cavities depend on
multiple factors, such as the method of implant, the temperature at which the metal is treated,
the alloy used as well as on the dentists who may favour one method above another and may
work better in his/her favourite method. Response is the variable of interest.
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.
Solution-
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1
H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different dentists with type 1 alloy.
HA1: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the dentists with type 1 alloy.
8KBJP7L0VE
7.2 Before the hypotheses may be tested, state the required assumptions. Are the assumptions
fulfilled? Comment separately on both alloy types.
Solution –
Test of Normality (Shapiro) for Type 1 Alloy for Dentist variable
In none of the cases, p-value is smaller than 0.05. Hence normality assumption is satisfied.
Test of Normality (Shapiro) for Type 2 Alloy for Dentist variable

For one dentist, p-value is smaller than 0.05. We will proceed with ANOVA.
Test of Normality (Shapiro) for Type 1 Alloy for Method variable
In none of the cases, p-value is smaller than 0.05. Hence normality assumption is satisfied
Test of Normality (Shapiro) for Type 2 Alloy for Method variable
For one dentist, p-value is smaller than 0.05. We will proceed with ANOVA.
8KBJP7L0VE
Levene test of equal variance for Type 1 and Type 2 Alloy for Method variable
Form above result for both alloy 1 and alloy 2 p value is less than 0.05 we can conclude that
the variances are not equal
Levene test of equal variance for Type 1 and Type 2 Alloy for Dentist variable
Form above result for both alloy 1 and alloy 2 p value is greater than 0.05 we can conclude
that the variances are equal.

Irrespective of your conclusion in 7.2, we will continue with the testing procedure.
7.3 What do you conclude regarding whether implant hardness depends on dentists? Clearly state
your conclusion. If the null hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify which pairs of dentists
differ?
Solution –
Since the level of significance is 5%, we can check from the below ANOVA output arrived at by
using the anova_lm function from scipy. stats.

8KBJP7L0VE Since p-value is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis of equality.

Since p-value is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis of equality.
As Null Hypothesis is not rejected, so no need to do post hoc test Tukey HSD

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?
Solution-

H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different methods with type 1 alloy.
HA1: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the methods with type 1 alloy.
Since p-value is smaller than 0.05, null hypothesis is rejected. At least one method is different from
the rest.
8KBJP7L0VE
H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different methods with type 2 alloy.
HA1: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the methods with type 2 alloy.
Since p-value is smaller than 0.05, null hypothesis is rejected. At least one method is different from
the rest.
Post hoc test Tukey HSD
Null rejected here, using Tukey HSD we get that Group 3 is different from Groups 1 and 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?
Solution –

H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different temperature with type 1 alloy.
HA1: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the temperature with type 1 alloy.
8KBJP7L0VE
As we can see from the ANOVA output the P-value is more than the level of significance, we are
Failed to Reject the Null Hypothesis

H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different temperature with type 2 alloy.
HA1: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the temperature with type 2 alloy.
As we can see from the ANOVA output the P-value is more than the level of significance, we are
Failed to Reject the Null Hypothesis
As Null Hypothesis is not rejected, so no need to do post hoc test Tukey HSD

7.6 Consider interaction effect of dentist and method and comment on the interaction plot,
separately for the two types of alloys
Solution –
Figure 8 Interaction Plot Alloy 1

8KBJP7L0VE
We can clearly say that mean hardness of dental implant is not same when different Dentists are
using different Methods in Alloy 1. This interaction is very significant here.
Figure 9 Interaction Plot Alloy 2
We can clearly say that mean hardness of dental implant is not same when different Dentists are
using different Methods in Alloy 2. This interaction is very significant here.

7.7 Now consider 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?
Solution –
Since the level of significance is 5%, The two-way ANOVA can be tested using the anova_LM
function resulting in the below output.

H0: The mean implant hardness is same across different Dentists with type 1 Alloy.
HA: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one of the Dentist with type 1 Alloy.
H0: The mean implant hardness is same across different Methods with type 1 Alloy.
HA: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one of the Method type with type 1 Alloy.
H0: There is no interaction between Dentist and Method types with type 1 Alloy.
HA: There is interaction between Dentist and Method types with type 1 Alloy
8KBJP7L0VE
Interaction for Alloy 1
For alloy 1: Dentist, Method and their interaction all are significant

H0: The mean implant hardness is same across different Dentists with type 2 Alloy.
HA: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one of the Dentist with type 2 Alloy.

H0: The mean implant hardness is same across different Methods with type 2 Alloy.
HA: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one of the Method type with type 2 Alloy.
H0: There is no interaction between Dentist and Method types with type 1 Alloy.
HA: There is interaction between Dentist and Method types with type 1 Alloy
Interaction for Alloy 2
8KBJP7L0VE
For Alloy 2: Method and their interaction are significant for Implant hardness


Solution For Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solution For Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADVANCED STATISTICS

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Figure 2 Required probability indicated by green shaded area. ----------------------------------------------------- 7

Figure 3 Required Probability indicated by the green shaded region. --------------------------------------------- 8

Figure 4 Green shaded area indicates the required probability. ---------------------------------------------------- 9

Figure 5 Green region indicates required probability --------------------------------------------------------------- 10

Figure 6 Required probability given by the green shaded area---------------------------------------------------- 10

Figure 8 Interaction Plot Alloy 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------19

Figure 8 Interaction Plot Alloy 2---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------20

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Striker Forward Attacking Midfielder Winger Total

P (Injured) = 145/235 = 0.617

1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger?

P (Forward OR Winger) = (94+29)/235 = 0.523

P (Striker AND Injured) = 45/235 = 0.1914

P (Striker|Injured) = 45/145 = 0.310

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

 The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a fire is 0.1%.

2.1 What are the probabilities of a fire, a

P (Mechanical Failure) = P (Radiation Leak AND Mechanical Failure)/ P (Radiation Leak

2.2 What is the probability of a radiation leak?

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

P (Fire|Radiation Leak) = P (Fire and Radiation Leak)/P (Radiation Leak) = 0.001/0.0037 =

P (Breaking strength < 3.17) = 0.1112

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com P (Breaking strength > 3.6) = 1 - 0.1753 = 0.8247

Figure 2 Required probability indicated by green shaded area.

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Figure 3 Required Probability indicated by the green shaded region.

P ([Breaking strength < 3] or [Breaking strength > 7.5)

1 – P (3 < Breaking strength < 7.5)

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Figure 6 Required probability given by the green shaded area

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

6.1 Aquarius Health club:

Table 1 Taking the difference between Before and After

It is clear that the gym’s program is successful.

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Test of Normality (Shapiro) for Type 2 Alloy for Dentist variable

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Test of Normality (Shapiro) for Type 2 Alloy for Method variable

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1

Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 2

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1

Post hoc test Tukey HSD

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1

Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 2

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Figure 8 Interaction Plot Alloy 1

Figure 9 Interaction Plot Alloy 2

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.

Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1

Interaction for Alloy 1

Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 2

This file is meant for personal use by saurabh.bisht1984@gmail.com only.