Advanced Statistics

Business Report
Ranvijay Sharma
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
 

  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

Prob 1.1) What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury?
Soln:-

Total no. of players = 235

Total no. of injured players = 145

So, probability that a random chosen player would suffer an injury = 145/235= 0.617

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

Soln:- Total no of forward player = 94

So probability of forward player P(A) = 94/235 =0.4

Total no. of winger player = 29

So probability of winger player P(B) =29/235= 0.123

These two are mutually exclusive =

So the probability that a player is a forward or a winger = P(A∪B)= 0.4+0.123= 0.523

Prob 1.3) What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and
has a foot injury?

Soln):-

Total no. of player are= 235

Players injured at striker position are = 45

The probability of the striker player to be injured = 45/235 = 0.19

Prob1.4) What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker?

Soln:-

Total no. of injured players are = 145

Players at striker position are = 45

The probability of the injured player to be striker = 45/145 = 0.31

Prob1.5) What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is either a forward or
an attacking midfielder? 

Soln:-

Total no of injured player = 145

So probability of forward player to be injured P(A) = 56/145 =0.386

Total no. of attacking midfielder = 24

So probability of attacking midfielder player to be injured P(B) =24/145= 0.166

These two are mutually exclusive =

So the probability that a player is a forward or a winger = P(A∪B)= 0.386+0.166= 0.552

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 hazards, 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:

Soln:-
Prob2.1) What are the probabilities of a fire, a mechanical failure, and a human error
respectively?

Soln):-
Total possibilities of radiation leak = (20+50+10)=80
Now probability of fire = 20/80=0.25
Probability of mechanical failure = 50/80=0.625
Probability of human error = 10/80 = 0.125

Prob2.2) What is the probability of a radiation leak?

The probability of radiation leak = (0.1+0.15+0.12)=0.37%

Prob2.3) 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.
 A Mechanical Failure.
 A Human Error.
Soln)

Probability caused by fire = 0.1/0.37= 0.27 %

Probability caused by mechanical fire = 0.15/0.37 = 0.41%

Probability caused by human error = 0.12/0.37 = 0.32 %

Problem 3:
The breaking strength of gunny bags used for packaging cement is normally
distributed with a mean of 5 kg per sq. centimeter and a standard deviation of 1.5 kg
per sq. centimeter. 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 an appropriate visual representation of your answers, without
which marks will be deducted)
Prob3.1) What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17
kg per sq cm?
Soln)
mu = 5
sigma = 1.5
The proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 = 11%
Prob3.2) What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg
per sq cm.?
Soln:-
The proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6kg/sq sm.=
82%

Prob3.3) What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and
5.5 kg per sq cm.?
Soln:- The proportion having a breking strength between 5 & 5.5 = 13%
Prob3.4) What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between
3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm.?
Soln:-
The proportion of breaking strength not between 3 & 7.5 kg/sq.cm = 14%

Problem 4:
 Grades of the 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.
Prob4.1) What is the probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade below
85 on this exam?
Soln:-
The probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade below 85 = 0.83
Prob4.2) What is the probability that a randomly selected student scores between 65
and 87?
Soln:-
The probability that a randomly selected student score between 65 & 87 = 0.80

Prob4.3) What should be the passing cut-off so that 75% of the students clear the
exam?
Soln:-
The passing cut off so that 75% students clear the exam = 71.26

Problem 5:
Zingaro stone printing is a company that specializes in printing images or patterns on
polished or unpolished stones. However, for the 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 a 5% significance
level);
Prob5.1) 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?
Soln:-
Here H0: mu =150 ( at least 150 hardness for printing)
Ha: mu < 150 ( Zingaro thinks not suitable for printing means hardness less than 150)
The 1 sample test p value result is below:-

As p value is less than significance value, then we can reject the H0 and accept the
Ha that hardness is less than 150 for unpolished stones
and unpolished stones may not be suitable for printing
Prob5.2) Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the same?
Soln:-
# H0: mu(polished) = mu(unpolished)
# Ha: mu(polished) != mu(unpolished)
The hypothesis test result is below:-

As the P value of the test is lower than significance value, then we can reject the H0
here.
So the Ha is true
And we can say that mean hardness of polished and unpolished stones are not same.

Problem 6:
 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 the level of
Significance as 5%)
Note that this is a problem of the 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.
Soln:-
# Hypothesis formulation
# H0: difference <=5 and the program is unsuccessful
# HA: difference >5 and the program is successful

Here p value is higher than significance value, so the null hypothesis is failed to reject
and the program is found unsuccessful

Problem 7: 
Dental implant data: The hardness of metal implant in dental cavities depends 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. The response is the
variable of interest.
Prob7.1) 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.?

For Alloy1

# H0 - Null Hypothesis: There is no difference among the dentists on the implant

hardness for alloy 1
# HA - Alternate Hypothesis: There is a difference among the dentists on the implant
hardness alloy 1

p value is higher than 0.05, so null hypothesis is failed to reject.

So, there is no difference among the dentists on implant hardness for

alloy 1
For Alloy2

# H0 - Null Hypothesis: There is no difference among the dentists on the implant hardness for
alloy 2

# HA - Alternate Hypothesis: There is a difference among the dentists on the implant hardness
alloy 2

p value is higher than 0.05, so null hypothesis is failed to reject.

So, there is no difference among the dentists on implant hardness for

alloy 2

Prob7.3) Irrespective of your conclusion in 2, we will continue with the testing procedure. 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?

Soln:-
# The conclusion is that implant hardness doesn’t depend on dentists.

# Yes we can identify which pair of dentists is differ by tuckey hsd test

Below is the result

Here False means, there is no difference

Prob 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?

Soln:-

For Alloy1

# H0 - Null Hypothesis: There is no difference among the methods on the implant

hardness for alloy 1
# HA - Alternate Hypothesis: There is a difference among the methods on the implant
hardness alloy 1

p value is higher than 0.05, so null hypothesis is failed to reject.

So, there is no difference among the methods on implant hardness for

alloy 1

For Alloy2

# H0 - Null Hypothesis: There is no difference among the methods on the implant hardness for
alloy 2
# HA - Alternate Hypothesis: There is a difference among the methods on the implant hardness
alloy 2

p value is lower than 0.05, so null hypothesis is rejected here.

So, there is a significant difference among the methods on implant hardness for alloy
2

# The conclusion is that implant hardness doesn't depend on methods for alloy1 but
depends for alloy2.

# Yes we can identify which pair of methods is differ by tuckey hsd test

By the tuckeyhsd result we can say that there is no difference

between method 1-2, but there is significant difference between
method 1-3, & 2-3

Prob 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?
Soln:-

For Alloy1

# H0 - Null Hypothesis: There is no difference among the temp on the implant

hardness for alloy 1
# HA - Alternate Hypothesis: There is a difference among the temp on the implant
hardness alloy 1

p value is higher than 0.05, so null hypothesis is failed to reject.

So, there is no difference among the temp on implant hardness for

alloy 1

For Alloy2

# H0 - Null Hypothesis: There is no difference among the temp on the implant hardness for alloy
2

# HA - Alternate Hypothesis: There is a difference among the temp on the implant hardness alloy
2

p value is higher than 0.05, so null hypothesis is failed to reject here.

So, there is no difference among the temp on implant hardness for alloy 2

# The conclusion is that implant hardness doesn't depend on temp for alloy1 and
alloy 2

# Yes we can identify which pair of methods is differ by tuckey hsd test

By the tuckeyhsd result we can say that there is no difference

between pair of temperatures.
Prob 7.6) Consider the interaction effect of dentist and method and comment on the interaction
plot, separately for the two types of alloys?

Soln:-

For Alloy1

# Ho: there is no interaction in both the categories for alloy 1

# Ha: there is interaction between both the categories for alloy 1

As the interaction effect for C(Dentist):C(Method) is less than significance value, that
means we reject the null hypothesis

So, there is significant interaction between the dentist and method for
alloy 1
For Alloy2

# Ho: there is no interaction in both the categories for alloy 2

# Ha: there is interaction between both the categories for alloy 2

As the interaction effect for C(Dentist):C(Method) is less than significance value, that means we
reject the null hypothesis

So, there is significant interaction between the dentist and method for alloy 2

Prob7.7) 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?
Soln:-
Conclusion for alloy 1:-
As the p value for C(Dentist):C(Method) is lower than 0.05 so, we can say that there
is significant interaction between Dentist and method for alloy 1.
 1.

Conclusion for alloy 2:-

As the p value for C(Dentist):C(Method) is lower than 0.05 so, we can say that there
is significant interaction between Dentist and method for alloy 2.

Now checking which dentist, method and interaction are different

For Alloys1

Conclusion:-
1. As in the dentists the P value is higher than 0.05, so there is no significant
difference between them.
2. As in methods the p value is higher than 0.05, so there is no significant
difference in the methods.
3. In interaction point C(Dentist)[T.4]:C(Method)[T.3], C(Dentist)[T.5]:C(Method)
[T.3], the p values are lower than 0.05, so here this point interaction are
different.
For Alloys 2

Conclusion:-
1. As in the dentists the P value is higher than 0.05, so there is no significant
difference between them.
2. As in methods the p value is lower than 0.05 for C(Method)[T.3] , so there is a
significant difference in the methods.
3. In interaction point C(Dentist)[T.5]:C(Method)[T.3], the p values is lower than
0.05, so here this point interaction is different.