Chapter 11 HW

Chapter 11 HW

2.

  1. proportion
  2. mean
  3. proportion
  4. proportion
  5. mean

3.

  1. alternative hypothesis
  2. null hypothesis
  3. alternative hypothesis
  4. alternative hypothesis
  5. null hypothesis
  6. alternative hypothesis
  7. null hypothesis

4.

  1. 5% chance of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis.
  2. 1% chance of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis.
  3. 10% chance of rejecting the null hypothesis.

6.

  1. Ho: there is no change in average intake of calories μ = 1100 Ha: there is a change in average intake of calories μ ≠ 1100

  2. Ho: there is no change in the average Verbal reasoning score μ = 462 Ha: there is an increase in verbal reasoning score μ > 462

    (I’m not sure if there is supposed to be data to look at fot these questions in order to answer the question at the bottom of each paragraph)

7.

    1. False, with rate you want to use proportion and using proportions the rate caridovascular problems with Pioglitazone is lower.

    2. True

    3. False, there may be correlation but causation is not proven

    4. True

  2. 7979/227571 or 3.51%

  3. 67593 * 7979/227571 or 2369.918 cases (round down to 2369?)

    1. The difference in cardiovascular problem rates between the two groups Ho: there is no difference in the rates Ha: the rate is the Risoglitazone group is higher than that of the Pioglitazone group

    2. A higher proportion of patients with cardiovascular problems in the Rosiglitazone group would support the alternative hypothesis

    3. The simulation indicates that Rosiglitazone leads to more cardiovascular issues in diabetic patients that use it than those who use other medications. 51 counts above, 37 counts below and 12 null counts.