library(tinytex)
2010 Healthcare Law. (6.48, p. 248) On June 28, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the much debated 2010 healthcare law, declaring it constitutional. A Gallup poll released the day after this decision indicates that 46% of 1,012 Americans agree with this decision. At a 95% confidence level, this sample has a 3% margin of error. Based on this information, determine if the following statements are true or false, and explain your reasoning.
Legalization of marijuana, Part I. (6.10, p. 216) The 2010 General Social Survey asked 1,259 US residents: “Do you think the use of marijuana should be made legal, or not” 48% of the respondents said it should be made legal.
n <- 1259
p <- .48
z <- 1.96
SE <- sqrt((p*(1-p))/n) # Standard Error
Lower_CI <- p - (z * SE)
Upper_CI <- p + (z * SE)
CI <- c(Lower_CI, Upper_CI)
CI
## [1] 0.4524028 0.5075972
Legalize Marijuana, Part II. (6.16, p. 216) As discussed in Exercise above, the 2010 General Social Survey reported a sample where about 48% of US residents thought marijuana should be made legal. If we wanted to limit the margin of error of a 95% confidence interval to 2%, about how many Americans would we need to survey?
p = 0.48
me = 0.02 # With Margin of Error - 2%
z = qnorm(0.975)
ze = me / z
n = (p *(1 - p)) / ze^2
round(n, 0)+ 1
## [1] 2398
Answer: Our survey should include about 2,398 Americans.
Sleep deprivation, CA vs. OR, Part I. (6.22, p. 226) According to a report on sleep deprivation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the proportion of California residents who reported insufficient rest or sleep during each of the preceding 30 days is 8.0%, while this proportion is 8.8% for Oregon residents. These data are based on simple random samples of 11,545 California and 4,691 Oregon residents. Calculate a 95% confidence interval for the difference between the proportions of Californians and Oregonians who are sleep deprived and interpret it in context of the data.
n_Cal <- 11545
n_Ore <- 4691
mean_Cal <- .08
mean_Ore <- .088
meandiff <- mean_Cal - mean_Ore
SE <- sqrt((((mean_Cal)*(1-mean_Cal)/n_Cal)+mean_Ore)*(1-mean_Ore)/(n_Ore))
z <- 1.96
Lower_CI <- meandiff-(z*SE)
Upper_CI <- meandiff+(z*SE)
CI <- c(Lower_CI, Upper_CI)
CI
## [1] -0.0161073298 0.0001073298
Answer: We see no significant evidence that there is difference in the sleep deprivation between California and Oregon residents.
Barking deer. (6.34, p. 239) Microhabitat factors associated with forage and bed sites of barking deer in Hainan Island, China were examined from 2001 to 2002. In this region woods make up 4.8% of the land, cultivated grass plot makes up 14.7% and deciduous forests makes up 39.6%. Of the 426 sites where the deer forage, 4 were categorized as woods, 16 as cultivated grassplot, and 61 as deciduous forests. The table below summarizes these data.
n <-426 # total from table
observation <-c(4, 16, 67, 345)
expected <-c(n * 0.048, n * 0.147, n * 0.396, n * 0.409)
chisq <-sum((observation - expected) ^ 2 / expected)
df <-4-1
round(pchisq(chisq, df, lower.tail=FALSE), 60)
## [1] 1.1e-59
We reject \({H_0}\) in favor of \({H_A}\) since there’s a difference with at least one of the forage categories.
Coffee and Depression. (6.50, p. 248) Researchers conducted a study investigating the relationship between caffeinated coffee consumption and risk of depression in women. They collected data on 50,739 women free of depression symptoms at the start of the study in the year 1996, and these women were followed through 2006. The researchers used questionnaires to collect data on caffeinated coffee consumption, asked each individual about physician-diagnosed depression, and also asked about the use of antidepressants. The table below shows the distribution of incidences of depression by amount of caffeinated coffee consumption.
(round(p_depressed <- (2607/50739), 4))
## [1] 0.0514
(round(pnon_depressed <- (48132/50739), 4))
## [1] 0.9486
Roughly 5% suffer from depression while about 95% do not suffer from it.
(round(expected <- p_depressed * 6617, 4))
## [1] 339.9854
observed <- 373
(round(test_stat <- ((observed - expected) ^ 2) / expected, 4))
## [1] 3.2059
The contribution of this cell is 3.2
p_value <- pchisq(20.93, 4)
(round(p_value <- 1 - p_value, 7))
## [1] 0.000327
Our p-vale is 0.0003
End of File. Thank you.