Problem 3

Yes, it is reasonable to beleive that the ads, do indeed, work to enhance his name reconition throughout the populus. With a P value of 0.033, the probablity that the results he saw were only due to random sampling variation, which is very low. Its reasonable to assume his ads worked then.

Problem 5

The response are not indpendent since they are from the same group

Problem 8

  1. Statified

  2. Difference would probably be small, 6%

  3. sqrt(0.590.41/300 + 0.530.47/300) = 4%

  4. Difference would be a noraml model with mean 6% and sd 4%.

  5. Yes, the difference could be very small and make a type 2 error

Problem 11

  1. sqrt(0.510.49/827 + 0.510.49/130) = 3.5%

  2. (0.39,0.49)

  3. weed killer also kills dogs! The probabilty that the results we saw with dogs with and with herbocide only have a 3.5% chance of being due to random sampling variation. Therefore, we can conclude that these products probably can be harmful.