CHAPTER 11

STATISTICAL INFERENCE: TWO POPULATIONS

1. The null and the alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : µ 1 = µ 2;
H1: µ 1 ≠ µ 2

This is a two-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.01.
The samples are chosen independently, the population variances are unknown and they are
 
 _ _ 
 ( X 1− X 2 ) − 0 
not known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,  .
2 2
 S S 

1
+ 2

 n 1 n 2 
The populations are approximately normal. Hence, this is approximately a two -tailed t-
test.

(s ) (5 )
2
2
1 / n1 + s22 / n2 2
/ 40 + 6 2 / 50
2

(
df =  s12 / n1 ) +(s )
 =  5 2 / 40 ( ) (6 )
2 2
2
/ n2
2 2
/ 50
2
 = 87.835
2
  + 
 n1 − 1 n2 − 1   39 49 

 

For df ≈ 88, t0.005 = approximately 2.64.

Decision rule : reject H0 in favour of H1 if t < -2.64 or if t > 2.64.

(102 − 99) − 0
t= 52 62 = 2.59.
+
40 50

Since 2.59 is between –2.64 and 2.64, there is insufficient evidence, at α = 0.01, to reject
H0 in favour of H1.

3. The null and alternate hypotheses are:

H0 : µ 1 = µ 2;
H1: µ 1 ≠ µ 2

This is a two-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.05.
Samples are chosen independently, the population variances are unknown, but we are
assuming them to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic

11-1
  
 _ _ 
 (X 1− X 2) − 0 
T=  .
 S2  1 + 1  
 p 
  n1 n2  
The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, this is a two-tailed t-test.
df = n1+n2-2 = 10 + 8 - 2= 16.
For df = 16, tα/2 = t0.025 = 2.12.
Hence, decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if t > 2.12 or if t < −2.12.

Pooled estimate of the population variance is,

(n1 − 1) s12 + ( n2 − 1) s22 (10 − 1)(4) 2 + (8 − 1)(5) 2

s =
2
p = = 19.9375
(n1 + n2 − 2) 10 + 8 − 2

(23 − 26) − 0
t= = −1.416.
 1 1
19.9375 + 
 10 8 

Since –1.416 is between –2.12 and +2.12, we do not have sufficient evidence, at α = 0.05,
to reject H0.

5. Let μ1 and μ2 be the population means of weight gains in infants using Gabbs’ products and the
competitors’ products, respectively, during first three month after birth. Then, the null and
alternative hypotheses are:
H0 : µ 1 ≥ µ 2;
H1: µ 1 < µ 2
This is a lower-tailed test.
We have chosen α = 0.05.
The samples are chosen independently, the population variances are unknown and they are
 
 _ _ 
 ( X 1− X 2 ) − 0 
not known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,  .
2 2
 S S

1
+ 2 
 n 1 n2 
The populations are approximately normal. Hence, this is approximately a lower-tailed t-
test.

(s ) ( (1.01) )
2
2
1 / n1 + s22 / n2 2
/ 30 + (1.3) 2 / 20
2

(
df =  s12 / n1 ) +(s ) (
 =  (1.01) 2 / 30 ) ( (1.3) )
2 2
2
/ n2
2 2
/ 20
2
 = 33.784.
2
  + 
 n1 − 1 n2 − 1   29 19 

 
For df ≈ 34, tα = t0.05 . 1.691.
Decision rule : reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than –1.691.

11-2
 (3.5 − 3.7) − 0
t= (1.01) 2 (1.3) 2 =-0.581.
+
30 20

Since –0.581 > -1.691, we do not have sufficient evidence, at α = 0.05, to reject H0, that is
to accept the claim that the babies using the Gibbs brand gain less weight.

α = 1 – 0.99 = 0.01. For df = 34, tα 2 = t0.005 . 2.73. A 99% confidence interval estimate for
(1.01) 2 (1.3) 2
(μ1- μ2) is (3.5 − 3.7) ± (2.73) + = -0.2 + (2.73)(0.3442) = (-1.14, 0.74).
30 20

7. Let μ1 and μ2 be the population means of turnover rates of oil related stocks and other stocks,
respectively. Then, the null and alternative hypotheses are:
H0 : µ 1 = µ 2;
H1: µ 1 ≠ µ 2
This is a two-tailed test.
We have chosen α = 0.01.
The two samples are independent, the population variances are unknown and they are not
known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,
 
 _ _ 
 ( X 1− X 2 ) − 0 
 2 2 .
 S S

1
+ 2 
 n 1 n2 
The populations are approximately normal. Hence, this is a two-tailed t-test.
(s ) ( (5.1) )
2
2
1 / n1 + s22 / n2 2
/ 32 + (6.7) 2 / 49
2

(
df =  s12 / n1 ) +(s )
 =  (5.1) 2 / 32( ) ( (6.7) )
2 2
2
/ n2
2 2
/ 49
2
 = 77.048
2
  + 
 n1 − 1 n2 − 1   31 48 

 

For df ≈ 77, tα/2 = t0.005 . 2.641.

Decision rule : reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than -2.641 or if it
is greater than 2.641.

(31.4 − 34.9) − 0
t= (5.1) 2 (6.7) 2 = -2.66
+
32 49

Since -2.66 is less than -2.641, there is sufficient evidence, at α = 0.01, to reject H0, that is,
to infer that there is a difference in the mean turnover rates.

9. Let the population means of grades of men and women in the examination be μm and μf,
respectively. Then, the null and alternative hypotheses are:

11-3
 H0 : µ m ≥ µ f ;
H1: µ m < µ f
This is a lower-tailed test.
We have chosen α = 0.01.
Samples are chosen independently, and the population variances are unknown, but are
known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic
 
 _ _ 
 (X m − X f ) − 0 
T=   .
 S2  1 + 1  
 p 
  n1 n2  
The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, this is a lower-tailed t-test.

df = 9 + 7 - 2 = 14. For df = 14, tα = t0.01 = 2.624.

Hence, decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than
-2.624.

For the given sample data,

72 + 69 +  + 77 (72 − 78) 2 +  + (77 − 78) 2

xm = = 78; s m = = 9.49
9 8
81 + 67 +  + 76 (81 − 79) 2 +  + (76 − 79) 2
xf = = 79; s f = = 6.88
7 6
 ( n1 − 1) sm2 + ( n2 − 1) s 2f  (9 − 1)(9.49) 2 + (7 − 1)(6.88) 2
sp = 
2
 = = 71.749
 n1 + n2 − 2 9+7−2
 
(78 − 79) − 0
t= = −0.234.
1 1
71.749 + 
9 7

Since -0.234 is greater than -2.624, we do not have sufficient evidence, at α = 0.01,
to reject H0 in favour of H1, that is, to conclude that the mean grade of women is
higher.

11. Let µ1 and µ 2 be the population mean values of number of defective units on the day shift and the
afternoon shift, respectively. Let µ D = µ1 − µ 2 .
The null and the alternative hypotheses are:
H0 : μD ≤ 0
H1 : μD > 0
This is an upper-tailed test.
We have chosen α = 0.05.

11-4
  D−0   D 
We shall use T =   =   as the test statistic.
S
 D / n   D S / 4 
The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, for µ D = 0, the distribution
of T is approximately student’s t-distribution with df = (n - 1) = 3.
So, this is an upper-tailed t-test.

For df = 3, tα = t0.05 = 2.353.

Our decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is greater than 2.353.

Day 10 12 15 19
Afternoon 8 9 12 15
d 2 3 3 4
2+3+3+ 4 (2 − 3) 2 +  + (4 − 3) 2
d = = 3; s D = = 0.816.
4 3
3
t= = 7.35
0.816 / 4

Since the computed t-value (=7.35) is greater than 2.353, there is sufficient evidence, at α
= 0.05, to reject H0 in favour of H1, that is, to conclude that there are less defective units
produced in the afternoon shift.

13. Let µ1 and µ 2 be the population mean values of student weights (in lbs.) upon arrival on campus,
and one year later, respectively. Let µ D = µ1 − µ 2 .
The null and the alternative hypotheses are :
H0 : μD ≥ 0
H1 : μD < 0

This is a lower-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.01.
 D−0   D 
We shall use as test statistic, T =   =   .
 S D / n   S D / 11 
The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, for µ D = 0, the distribution
of T is approximately student’s t-distribution with df = (n - 1) = 10.
So, this is a lower-tailed t-test.

For df = 10, tα = t0.01 = 2.764.

Our decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than –2.764.

For the given sample data, the sample values of D are:

On 124 157 98 190 103 135 149 176 200 180 256
arrival
After 1 142 157 96 212 116 134 150 184 209 180 269
year
d -18 0 2 -22 -13 1 -1 -8 -9 0 -13

11-5
 −18 + 0 + L − 13 (−18 + 7.3636) 2 + L + ( −13 + 7.3636) 2
d= = −7.3636; sD = = 8.37;
11 10
−7.3636
t= = −2.92
8.37 / 11

Since the computed t-value (=-2.92) is less than -2.764, there is sufficient evidence, at α =
0.01, to reject H0 in favour of H1, that is, to conclude that there is a weight gain in the first
year.

α = 1 – 0.95 = 0.05. For df = 10, tα 2 = t0.025 = 2.228. A 95% confidence interval estimate
for mean increase in weight during the first year is 7.3636 ± (2.228)(8.37 / 11) =
(1.74, 12.99).

15. Let µ1 and µ 2 be the population mean values of strength before and after the use of special
vitamins, respectively. Let µ D = µ1 − µ 2 .
The null and the alternative hypotheses are
H0 : μD ≥ 0;
H1 : μD < 0.

This is a lower-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.01.
 D−0   D 
We shall use as test statistic, T =   =   .
 S D / n   S D / 10 
The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, for µ D = 0, the distribution
of T is approximately student’s t-distribution with df = (n - 1) = 9.
So, this is a lower-tailed t-test

For df = 9, tα = t0.01 = 2.821.

Our decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than -2.821.
For the given sample data, the sample values of D are:

11-6
 Before 86 115 156 96 52 57 85 53 89 57
After 89 114 156 97 51 58 87 54 88 56
d -3 1 0 -1 1 -1 -2 -1 1 1

− 3 +1++1 (−3 + 0.4) 2 +  + (1 + 0.4) 2

d = = −0.4; s D = = 1.43
10 9
−0.4
t= = −0.885
1.43 / 10

Since the computed t-value (=-0.885) is greater than -2.821, we do not have sufficient
evidence, at α = 0.01, to reject H0 in favour of H1, that is, to conclude that there the
special vitamin increases the strength.

17. The null and the alternative hypotheses are :

H0 : p1 ≤ p2
H1 : p1 > p2

This is an upper-tailed test.

We have selected α = 0.05.
The samples are selected independently. Therefore, we shall use as test statistic:
( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) − 0
1 1
pˆ (1 − pˆ )  + 
 n1 n2 

70 90
pˆ1 = = 0.7; pˆ 2 = = 0.6.
100 150
n1 pˆ1 = (100)(0.7) > 5, n1 (1 − pˆ1 ) = (100)(0.3) > 5,
n2 pˆ 2 = (150)(0.6) > 5, n2 (1 − pˆ 2 ) = (150)(0.4) > 5.

Hence, the sample sizes are large enough for the use of normal approximation. This is an
upper-tailed Z-test.
The decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed z-value is greater than
zα = z0.05 = 1.645 .
70 + 90
The pooled estimate of proportion is pˆ = = 0.64 .
100 + 150
70 90
pˆ1 = = 0.7; pˆ 2 = = 0.6;
100 150
( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) 0.7 − 0.6
z= = = 1.614 .
1 1  1 1 
pˆ (1 − pˆ )  +  (0.64)(0.36)  + 
 n1 n2   100 150 

11-7
 Since the computed z-value (=1.614) is less than 1.645, we do not have sufficient
evidence, α = 0.05, to reject H0 in favour of H1, that is to conclude that p1 is greater than
p2.

A 98 percent confidence interval estimate for (p1-p2) is:

^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ p1 (1 − p1 ) p 2 (1 − p 2 )
( p1 − p 2 ) ± z0.01 +
n1 n2
(0.7)(0.3) (0.7)(0.3)
= (0.7 − 0.6) ± (2.326) +
100 150
= (0.1 ± 0.141) = (−0.041, 0.241).

19. Let p1 and p2 be, respectively, population fractions of vines treated with Action and Pernod
5, respectively, that get infested. Then, the null and alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : p1- p2 ≤ 0.02
H1 : p1-p2 > 0.02

This is an upper-tailed test.

( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) − 0.02
We shall use as test statistic pˆ1 (1 − pˆ1 ) pˆ 2 (1 − pˆ 2 )
+
n1 n2

40 24
pˆ1 = = 0.1; pˆ 2 = = 0.06;
400 400
n1 pˆ1 = (400)(0.1) > 5; n1 (1 − pˆ1 ) = (400)(0.9) > 5;
n2 pˆ 2 = (400)(0.6) > 5; n2 (1 − pˆ 2 ) = (400)(0.4) > 5.

Hence, the sample sizes are large enough for normal approximation. This is an upper-tailed
Z-test.
We have chosen α = 0.05; zα = z0.05 = 1.645.
The decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed z-value is greater than
1.645.

(0.1 − 0.06) − 0.02

z=
(0.1)(0.9) (0.06)(0.94) = 1.045
+
400 400

Since the computed z-value (= 1.045) is less than 1.645, we do not have sufficient
evidence, at α = 0.05, to conclude that (p1-p2) is greater than 0.02.

21. Let ps and pm be, respectively, population proportions of single and married drivers insured
by Cambridge Insurance that had an accident during the three years period. Then, the null
and alternative hypotheses are:

11-8
 H0 : ps - pm = 0
H1 : ps - pm ≠ 0

This is a two-tailed test.

We have selected α = 0.05.
We assume that the samples are selected independently, and therefore, we shall use as test
( pˆ s − pˆ m ) − 0
statistic: 1 1 
pˆ (1 − pˆ )  + 
 ns nm 

120 150
pˆ s = = 0.3; pˆ 2 = = 0.25.
400 600
ns pˆ s = (400)(0.3) > 5; ns (1 − pˆ s ) = (400)(0.7) > 5;
nm pˆ m = (600)(0.25) > 5; nm (1 − pˆ m ) = (600)(0.75) > 5.

Hence, the sample sizes are large enough for the use of normal approximation. This is a
two-tailed Z-test.
Zα/2 = z0.025 = 1.96.
The decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed z-value is less than -1.96 or
if it is greater than 1.96.
xs + xm 120 + 150
The pooled estimate of proportion is: pˆ = = = 0.27.
ns + nm 400 + 600

The value of the test statistic is

( pˆ s − pˆ m ) (0.3 − 0.25)
z= = =
1 1   1 1  1.745.
pˆ (1 − pˆ )  +  (0.27)(0.73)  + 
 ns nm   400 600 

Since the computed z-value (= 1.745) is between -1.96 and 1.96, we do not have sufficient
evidence, α = 0.05, to reject H0 in favour of H1, that is to conclude that the values of the
two population proportions are different.

A 95% confidence interval estimate for the difference between the two population
(0.3)(0.7) (0.25)(0.75)
proportions is: (0.3 − 0.25) ± (1.96) + = (-0.0067, 0.1067).
400 600

23. Let µ 1 and µ 2 be the population means of useful life times (in months) of Cooper paint
and King paint, respectively. Then, the null and alternative hypotheses are:

11-9
 H0 : µ 1 = µ 2
H1 : µ 1 ≠ µ 2

This is a two-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.01.
The samples are chosen independently, the population variances are unknown and they are
 
 
 ( X1 − X 2 ) − 0 
not known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,  .
2 2
 S S

1
+ 2 
 n 1 n2 
The population distributions are approximately normal and the sample sizes are large
enough. Hence, this is a two-tailed t-test

(s ) ( (1.14) )
2
2
1 / n1 + s22 / n2 2
/ 35 + (1.3) 2 / 40
2

(
df =  s12 / n1 ) +(s )
 =  (1.14) 2 / 35( ) ( (1.3) )
2 2
2
/ n2
2 2
/ 40
2
 = 72.9988
2
  + 
 n1 − 1 n2 − 1   34 39 

 

For df ≈ 73, tα = t0.005 . 2.651.

Decision rule : reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than -2.651 or if it
is greater than 2.651.

(36.2 − 37.0) − 0
t= (1.14) 2 (1.3) 2 = -2.839
+
35 40

Since –2.839 is less than –2.651, there is sufficient evidence, at α = 0.01, to reject H0, that
is, to infer that the mean useful lives of the two paints are different.

α = 1 – 0.95 = 0.05. For df = 73, tα/2 = t0.025 = approximately 1.996.

A 95 percent confidence interval estimate for the difference ( µ1 − µ 2 ) is
_ _  s2 s2  (1.14) 2 (1.3) 2
( x1 − x 2 ) ± tα 2  1 + 2  = (36.2 − 37.0) ± (1.996) +
 n1 n2  35 40
= (-0.8 + 0.562) = (-1.362, -0.238).

25. Let µ 1 and µ 2 be the population means of costs of health benefit packages (in terms of
percentage of salary), for employees, offered by large and small firms, respectively. Then,
the null and alternative hypotheses are:

11-10
 H0 : µ 1 = µ 2
H1: µ 1 ≠ µ 2

This is a two-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.05.
The samples are chosen independently, the population variances are unknown and they are
 
 
 ( X1 − X 2 ) − 0 
not known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,  .
2 2
 S S

1
+ 2 
 n 1 n2 

The populations are approximately normal and the sample sizes are large enough. Hence,
this is a two-tailed t-test

( (2.6) 2
/ 15 + (3.3) 2 / 12 ) 2

 (
df =  (2.6) 2 / 15 ) 2

+
( (3.3) 2
/ 12 ) 2
 = 20.6389

 14 11 
 
For df ≈ 21, tα 2 = t0.025 = 2.08.
Decision rule is : reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than -2.08 or if it
is greater than 2.08.

(17.6 − 16.2) − 0
t= (2.6) 2 (3.3) 2 = 1.2013
+
15 12
Since 1.2013 is between –2.08 and 2.08, we do not have sufficient evidence, at α = 0.05, to
conclude that the population means of percent of employee salaries, spent by large and
small firms on health benefits, are different.

27. Let µ 1 and µ 2 be the population mean values of number of hamburgers sold per day at
northside site and the southside site, respectively. Then, the null and alternative hypotheses
are:

H0 : µ 1 = µ 2;
H1 : µ 1 ≠ µ 2.

This is a two-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.05.

11-11
 The samples are chosen independently, the population variances are unknown and they are
 
 
 ( X1 − X 2 ) − 0 
not known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,  .
2 2
 S S

1
+ 2 
 n 1 n2 
The populations are approximately normally distributed and the sample sizes are large
enough. Hence, this is a two-tailed t-test.
(s ) ( (10.5) )
2
2
1 / n1 + s22 / n2 2
/ 10 + (14.25) 2 / 12
2

(
df =  s12 / n1 ) +(s ) (
 =  (10.5) 2 / 10 ) ( (14.25) )
2 2
/ 12  =19.7541
2 2 2 2
/ n2
2
  +
 n1 − 1 n2 − 1   9 11 

 

For df ≈ 20, tα/2 = t0.025 = 2.086.

Decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than -2.086 or if it
is greater than 2.086.

(83.55 − 78.8) − 0
t= (10.5) 2 (14.25) 2 = 0.8985
+
10 12

Since 0.8985 is between –2.086 and 2.086, we do not have sufficient evidence, at α = 0.05,
to conclude that the mean number of hamburgers sold at the two locations are different.

29. Let µ 1 and µ 2 be the population means of amounts purchased on impulse per customer at
stores on Peach street and Plum street, respectively. Then, the null and alternative
hypotheses are:

H0 : µ 1 = µ 2
H1 : µ 1 ≠ µ 2

This is a two-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.01.

The two samples are independent, and the population variances are unknown, but they are
 
 
 ( X1 − X 2 ) − 0 
known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,  .
 S2  1 + 1  
 p 
  n1 n2  
The populations are approximately normally distributed. Hence, this is a two-tailed t-test.

11-12
 For df = 10 + 14 - 2 = 22, tα/2 = t0.005 = 2.819.
Decision rule is : reject Ho if the computed t-value is less than -2.819 or if it is greater than
2.819 .

For the given sample data,

17.58 + L + 15.85 (17.58 − 15.87) 2 + L + (15.85 − 15.87) 2
x1 = = 15.87; s1 = = 2.33
10 9

18.19 + L + 14.83 (18.19 − 18.29) 2 + L + (14.83 − 18.29) 2

x2 = = 18.29; s2 = = 2.55
14 13
9(2.33) 2 + 13( 2.55) 2
s 2p = = 6.06.
10 + 14 − 2
(15.87 − 18.29) − 0
t= = −2.374.
1 1
6.06 + 
 10 14 

Since –2.374 is between –2.819 and +2.819, we do not have sufficient evidence, at α =
0.01, to reject H0, that is, to infer that the mean amounts, purchased on impulse at the two
stores, are different.

31. Let µ 1 and µ 2 be the population means of number of units sold at discount and regular
prices, respectively. Then, the null and alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : µ 1 ≤ µ 2
H1 : µ 1 > µ 2

This is an upper-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.01.

The two samples are independent, and the population variances are unknown, but they are
 
 
 ( X1 − X 2 ) − 0 
known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,  .
 S2  1 1 
p +  

  1 n2  
n

The populations are approximately normally distributed. Hence, this is an upper-tailed t-

test.

For df = 8 + 7 - 2 = 13, tα = t0.01 = 2.65.

Decision rule is: reject Ho in favour of H1 if the computed t- value is greater than 2.65.

For the given sample data,

11-13
 128 + L + 120 (128 − 125.125) 2 + L + (120 − 125.125) 2
x1 = = 125.125; s1 = = 15.094.
8 8
138 + L + 96 (138 − 117.714) 2 + L + (96 − 117.714) 2
x2 = = 117.714; s2 = = 19.914
7 6
7(15.094) 2 + 6(19.914) 2
s 2p = = 305.708.
8+7−2
(125.125 − 117.714) − 0
t= = 0.819.
1 1
305.708 + 
8 7

Since the computed t-value (=0.819) is less than 2.65, we do not have sufficient evidence,
at α = 0.01, to reject H0, that is, to infer that price reduction resulted in an increase in mean
value of sales.

33. Let µ1 and µ 2 be the population mean values of student grades under the quarter system and the
semester system, respectively. Let µ D = µ1 − µ 2 .
Then, the null and the alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : μD ≤ 0
H1 : μD > 0

This is an upper-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.05.
We have chosen a matched paired sample. Hence, we shall use T =
 D−0   D 
  =   as the test statistic.
 S D / n   S D / 10 

The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, for µ D = 0, the distribution
of T is approximately student’s t-distribution with df = (n - 1) = 9.
So, this is an upper-tailed t-test.

For df = 9, tα = t0.05 = 1.833.

Our decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is greater than 1.833.
For the given sample data, the sample values of D are:

last fall 2.98 2.34 3.68 3.13 3.34 2.09 2.45 2.96 2.80 4.00
this fall 3.17 2.04 3.62 3.19 2.90 2.08 2.88 3.15 2.49 2.98
d -0.19 0.30 0.06 -0.06 0.44 0.01 -0.43 -0.19 0.31 0.02

11-14
 −0.19 + L + 0.02
d= = 0.027;
10
(−0.19 − 0.027) 2 + L + (0.02 − 0.027) 2
sD = = 0.2661.
9
0.027 − 0
t= = 0.321
0.2661 / 10

Since the computed t-value (=0.321) is less than 1.833, we do not have sufficient evidence,
at α = 0.05, to conclude that student grades declined after the conversion.

35. Let µ1 and µ 2 be the population mean values of annual family incomes (in thousands of dollars)
of potential buyers at the first and second developments, respectively. Let µ D = µ1 − µ 2
.Then, the null and the alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : µ 1 = µ 2
H1: µ 1 ≠ µ 2

This is a two-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.05.

The samples are chosen independently, the population variances are unknown and they are
not known to be equal. Hence, we shall use as test statistic,
 
 
 ( X 1 − X 2 ) − ( µ1 − µ 2 ) 
 2 2 .
 S S 

1
+ 2

 n 1 n 2 
The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, this is a two-tailed t-test.
(s ) ( (40) )
2
2
1 / n1 + s22 / n2 2
/ 75 + (30) 2 / 120
2

(
df =  s12 / n1 ) +(s )
 =  (40) 2 / 75( ) ( (30) )
2 2
2
/ n2
2 2
/ 120
2
 = 125.5294
2
  + 
 n1 − 1 n2 − 1   74 119 

 
For df ≈ 126, tα/2 = t0.025 . 1.979.
Decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than -1.979 or if it
is greater than 1.979.

(150 − 180) − 0
t= (40) 2 (30) 2 = -5.587.
+
75 120

Since the computed t-value (= –5.587) is less than -1.979, there is sufficient evidence, at α
= 0.05, to reject H0 in favour of H1, that is, to infer that the two population means are
different.

11-15
37. Let µ1 and µ 2 be the population mean values of contamination measurements, before and after
the use of new soap, respectively. Let µ D = µ1 − µ 2 .
The null and the alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : μD ≤ 0
H1 : μD > 0

This is an upper-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.05.
Since the sample selected is a matched pair sample, we shall use T =
 D−0   D 
  =   as the test statistic.
S
 D / n   SD / 2 
The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, for µ D = 0, the distribution
of T is approximately student’s t-distribution with df = (n - 1) = 7.
So, this is an upper-tailed t-test.
For df = 7, tα = t0.05 = 1.895.
Our decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is greater than 1.895.
For the given sample data, the sample values of D are:

Before 6.6 6.5 9.0 10.3 11.2 8.1 6.3 11.6

After 6.8 2.4 7.4 8.5 8.1 6.1 3.4 2.0
d -0.2 4.1 1.6 1.8 3.1 2.0 2.9 9.6

− 0.2 +  + 9.6 ( −0.2 − 3.11) 2 +  + (9.6 − 3.11) 2

d = = 3.11; s D = = 2.91.
8 7
3.11 − 0
t= = 3.02.
2.91 / 8

Since the computed t-value (= 3.02) is greater than 1.895, there is sufficient evidence, at α
= 0.05, to reject H0 in favour of H1, that is, to infer that the contamination measurements
are lower after the use of the new soap.

39. Let p1 and p2 be the population proportions of current Advil users who, when given the
new drug and the old drug, respectively, would indicate that the drug given is more
effective. Then, the null and alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : p1-p2 ≤ 0
H1 : p1-p2 > 0

This is an upper-tailed test.

We have selected α = 0.05.

11-16
 The samples are selected independently, and therefore, we shall use as test statistic:
( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 )
1 1
pˆ (1 − pˆ )  + 
 n1 n2 

180 261
pˆ1 = = 0.9; pˆ 2 = = 0.87.
200 300
n1 pˆ1 = (200)(0.9) > 5, n1 (1 − pˆ1 ) = (200)(0.1) > 5,
n2 pˆ 2 = (300)(0.87) > 5, n2 (1 − pˆ 2 ) = (300)(0.13) > 5.

Hence, the sample sizes are large enough for the use of normal approximation. This is an
upper-tailed Z-test.
The decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed z-value is greater than zα =
z0.05 = 1.645.

x1 + x2 180 + 261
The pooled estimate of proportion is: pˆ = = = 0.882 .
n1 + n2 200 + 300

( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) 0.9 − 0.87

z = = 1.019
1 1  1 1 
pˆ (1 − pˆ )  +  (0.882)(0.118)  + 
 n1 n2   200 300 
Since 1.019 < 1.645, we do not have sufficient evidence, at α = 0.05, to reject H0 in favour
H1, that is, to infer that the new drug is more effective.

41. Let p1 and p2 be the population proportions of college women and men, respectively, who
smoke at least a pack of cigarettes a day.
Then, the null and alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : p1-p2 = 0
H1 : p1-p2 ≠ 0

This is a two-tailed test.

We have selected α = 0.05.
The samples are selected independently, and therefore, we shall use as test statistic:
( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 )
1 1
pˆ (1 − pˆ )  + 
 n1 n2 

72 70
pˆ1 = = 0.18; pˆ 2 = = 0.14.
400 500
n1 pˆ1 = (400)(0.18) > 5, n1 (1 − pˆ1 ) = (400)(0.82) > 5,
n2 pˆ 2 = (500)(0.14) > 5, n2 (1 − pˆ 2 ) = (500)(0.86) > 5.

11-17
 Hence, the sample sizes are large enough for the use of normal approximation. This is a
two-tailed Z-test.
The decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed z-value is less than -zα /2 =
-z0.025 = -1.96 or if it is greater than 1.96.

x1 + x2 72 + 70
The pooled estimate of proportion is: pˆ = = = 0.1578
n1 + n2 400 + 500

( pˆ1 − pˆ 2 ) 0.18 − 0.14

z = = 1.636.
1 1  1 1 
pˆ (1 − pˆ )  +  (0.1578)(0.8422)  + 
 n1 n2   400 500 

Since 1.636 is between –1.96 and +1.96, we do not have sufficient evidence, at α = 0.05, to
reject H0, that is, to infer that the two population proportions are different.

43. Let µ1 and µ 2 be the population mean values of stock prices of the top 100 companies on
November 2001 and at present, respectively. Let µ D = µ1 − µ 2 .
The null and the alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : μD = 0
H1 : μD ≠ 0

This is a two-tailed test.

We have chosen α = 0.05.
 D−0   D 
The sample is a matched-pair sample. Hence, we shall use T =   =  
 S D / n   S D / 10 
as the test statistic.

The population distributions are approximately normal. Hence, for µ D = 0, the distribution
of T is approximately student’s t-distribution with df = (n - 1) = 9.
So, this is a two-tailed t-test.

For df = 9, tα /2 = t0.025 = 2.262.

Our decision rule is: reject H0 in favour of H1 if the computed t-value is less than -2.262 or
if it is greater than 2.262.
d
Collect the sample data, compute d , s D , and t = , and draw the conclusion.
s D / 10

45. (a) Let µ 1 = mean selling price of homes without pool; µ 2 = mean selling price of homes
with pool. Then, the null and the alternative hypotheses are :
H0 : µ 1 = µ 2
H1 : µ 1 ≠ µ 2

11-18
 By sorting the data according to the values of the “Pool” variable, separating the data on
houses without pool (value of Pool = 0) from the data on houses with pool (value of
Pool=1), and using Minitab and Microsoft Excel we get the following outputs.

MINITAB OUTPUT
Two-sample T for C1 vs C2

N Mean StDev SE Mean

C1 38 202.8 33.7 5.5
C2 67 231.5 50.6 6.2

Difference = mu C1 - mu C2
Estimate for difference: -28.69
95% CI for difference: (-45.06, -12.32)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -3.48 P-Value = 0.001 DF = 100

MICROSOFT EXCEL OUTPUT

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 202.7974 231.4851
Variance 1136.031 2557.258
Observations 38 67
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 100
t Stat -3.47727
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000376
t Critical one-tail 1.660235
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000751
t Critical two-tail 1.983972

From both the outputs, we see that the P-value is approximately 0.001. Since the selected
value of α (= 0.05) is greater than the P-value, we have sufficient evidence to reject H0,
that is, to infer that the population means of selling prices of houses with and without a
pool are different.

(b) Let µ 1 = mean selling price of homes without garage; µ 2 = mean selling price of homes with
garage. Then, the null and the alternative hypotheses are :

H0 : µ 1 = µ 2
H1 : µ 1 ≠ µ 2

By sorting the data according to the values of the “garage” variable, separating the data on
houses without attached garage (value of garage = 0) from the data on houses with
attached garage (value of garage =1), and using Minitab and Microsoft Excel we get the
following outputs.

11-19
 MINITAB OUTPUT
Two-sample T for C1 vs C2

N Mean StDev SE Mean

C1 34 185.5 28.0 4.8
C2 71 238.2 44.9 5.3

Difference = mu C1 - mu C2
Estimate for difference: -52.73
95% CI for difference: (-66.96, -38.49)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -7.35 P-Value = 0.000 DF = 95

MICROSOFT EXCEL OUTPUT

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 185.45 238.1761
Variance 784.2571 2013.896
Observations 34 71
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 96
t Stat -7.35212
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.25E-11
t Critical one-tail 1.660883
P(T<=t) two-tail 6.5E-11
t Critical two-tail 1.984986

From both the outputs, we see that the P-value is almost 0. Since the selected value of α (=
0.05) is greater than the P-value, we have sufficient evidence to reject H0, that is, to infer
that the population means of selling prices of houses with and without an attached garage
are different.

(c) Let µ 1 = mean selling price of homes in township 1; µ 2 = mean selling price of homes in
township 2. Then, the null and the alternative hypotheses are :

H0 : µ 1 = µ 2
H1 : µ 1 ≠ µ 2

By sorting the data according to the values of the “township” variable, separating the data
on houses in township 1 (value of township = 1) from the data on houses in township 2
(value of township = 2), and using Minitab and Microsoft Excel we get the following
outputs.

11-20
 MINITAB OUTPUT
Two-sample T for C1 vs C2

N Mean StDev SE Mean

C1 15 196.9 35.8 9.2
C2 20 227.5 44.2 9.9

Difference = mu C1 - mu C2
Estimate for difference: -30.5
95% CI for difference: (-58.1, -3.0)
T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -2.26 P-Value = 0.031 DF = 32

MICROSOFT EXCEL OUTPUT

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances
Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 196.9133 227.45
Variance 1280.498 1953.054
Observations 15 20
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 33
t Stat -2.25722
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.015368
t Critical one-tail 1.69236
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.030736
t Critical two-tail 2.034517
From the computer outputs, we see that the P-value is approximately 0.031. Since the
selected value of α (= 0.05) is greater than the P-value, we have sufficient evidence to
reject H0, that is, to infer that the population means of selling prices of houses in townships
1 and 2 are different.

47. Let µ 1 = the mean value of earnings per share of the top 1000 companies during the year
2000; and let µ 2 = the mean value of earnings per share of the top 1000 companies during
the year 1999. Then, the null and the alternative hypotheses are:

H0 : µ 1 ≤ µ 2

H1 : µ 1 > µ 2

The Minitab and Microsoft Excel outputs are given below.

MINITAB OUTPUT

Paired T for C1 - C2

N Mean StDev SE Mean

C1 100 0.939 1.826 0.183
C2 100 0.785 1.466 0.147
Difference 100 0.155 1.234 0.123

95% lower bound for mean difference: -0.050

T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs > 0): T-Value = 1.25 P-Value = 0.107

11-21
 MICROSOFT EXCEL
OUTPUT
t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
Variable Variable
1 2
Mean 0.9394 0.7848
Variance 3.333123 2.14933
Observations 100 100
Pearson Correlation 0.739906
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 99
t Stat 1.253294
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.106525
t Critical one-tail 1.660392
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.21305
t Critical two-tail 1.984217

From the computer outputs, we see that the P-value is approximately 0.107. Since the
selected value of α (= 0.05) is less than the P-value, we do not have sufficient evidence to
reject H0, that is, to infer that the mean value for the year 2000 was higher than that for the
year 1999.

11-22