Appendix Tables

787
788 Appendix Tables

Table A.1 Cumulative Binomial Probabilities

 Appendix Tables 789

Table A.1 Cumulative Binomial Probabilities (cont.)

790 Appendix Tables

Table A.1 Cumulative Binomial Probabilities (cont.)

Table A.2 Cumulative Poisson Probabilities

 Appendix Tables 791

Table A.2 Cumulative Poisson Probabilities (cont.)

792 Appendix Tables

Table A.3 Standard Normal Curve Areas

 Appendix Tables 793

Table A.3 Standard Normal Curve Areas (cont.)

794 Appendix Tables

Table A.4 The Incomplete Gamma Function

 Appendix Tables 795

Table A.5 Critical Values for t Distributions

796 Appendix Tables

Table A.6 Critical Values for Chi-Squared Distributions

 Appendix Tables 797

Table A.7 t Curve Tail Areas

798 Appendix Tables

Table A.7 t Curve Tail Areas (cont.)

 Appendix Tables 799

Table A.8 Critical Values for F Distributions

800 Appendix Tables

Table A.8 Critical Values for F Distributions (cont.)

 Appendix Tables 801

Table A.8 Critical Values for F Distributions (cont.)

802 Appendix Tables

Table A.8 Critical Values for F Distributions (cont.)

 Appendix Tables 803

Table A.8 Critical Values for F Distributions (cont.)

804 Appendix Tables

Table A.8 Critical Values for F Distributions (cont.)

 Appendix Tables 805

Table A.9 Critical Values for Studentized Range Distributions

806 Appendix Tables

Table A.10 Chi-Squared Curve Tail Areas

 Appendix Tables 807

Table A.10 Chi-Squared Curve Tail Areas (cont.)

808 Appendix Tables

Table A.11 Critical Values for the Ryan–Joiner Test of Normality

 Appendix Tables 809

Table A.12 Critical Values for the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test

810 Appendix Tables

Table A.13 Critical Values for the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test

 Appendix Tables 811

Table A.14 Critical Values for the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Interval

812 Appendix Tables

Table A.15 Critical Values for the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Interval

 Appendix Tables

Table A.16 b Curves for t Tests

813
Answers to
Odd-Numbered Exercises
Chapter 1
This display brings out the gap in the data:
1. a. Houston Chronicle, Des Moines Register, Chicago There are no scores in the high 70’s.
Tribune, Washington Post
b. Capital One, Campbell Soup, Merrill Lynch, 13. a. 2 23 Stem units: 1.0
Prudential 3 2344567789 Leaf units: .10
c. Bill Jasper, Kay Reinke, Helen Ford, David Menendez 4 01356889
d. 1.78, 2.44, 3.50, 3.04 5 00001114455666789
6 0000122223344456667789999
3. a. In a sample of 100 DVD players, what are the chances
that more than 20 need service while under warranty? 7 00012233455555668
What are the chances that none need service while still 8 02233448
under warranty? 9 012233335666788
b. What proportion of all DVD players of this brand and 10 2344455688
model will need service within the warranty period? 11 2335999
12 37
5. a. No, the relevant conceptual population is all scores of
all students who participate in the SI in conjunction 13 8
with this particular statistics course. 14 36
b. The advantage of randomly allocating students to the 15 0035
two groups is that the two groups should then be fairly 16
comparable before the study. If the two groups perform 17
differently in the class, we might attribute this to the 18 9
treatments (SI and control). If it were left to students to
choose, stronger or more dedicated students might b. A representative value could be the median, 7.0.
gravitate toward SI, confounding the results. c. The data appear to be highly concentrated, except for
c. If all students were put in the treatment group there a few values on the positive side.
would be no results with which to compare the d. No, there is skewness to the right, or positive
treatments. skewness.
e. The value 18.9 appears to be an outlier, being more
7. One could generate a simple random sample of all single than two stem units from the previous value.
family homes in the city, or a stratified random sample
by taking a simple random sample from each of the ten 15. a.
district neighborhoods. From each of the homes in the Relative
sample the necessary data would be collected. This
Number frequency
would be an enumerative study because there exists a
finite, identifiable population of objects from which to nonconforming Frequency (Freq/60)
sample. 0 7 0.117
9. a. There could be several explanations for the variability 1 12 0.200
of the measurements. Among them could be measuring 2 13 0.217
error, (due to mechanical or technical changes across 3 14 0.233
measurements), recording error, differences in 4 6 0.100
weather conditions at time of measurements, etc. 5 3 0.050
b. This study involves a conceptual population. There is
6 3 0.050
no sampling frame.
7 1 0.017
11. 6 l 034 8 1 0.017
6h 667899 1.001
7l 00122244 Doesn’t add exactly to 1 because relative
7h Stem ¼ tens frequencies have been rounded
8l 001111122344 Leaf ¼ ones
8h 5557899
9l 03
9h 58

814
 Chapter 1 815

b. .917, .867, 1 .867 ¼ .133

c. The center of the histogram is somewhere around b. Class Freq Rel freq Density
2 or 3 and it shows that there is some positive
skewness in the data. 0– < 50 8 0.08 .0016
50– < 100 13 0.13 .0026
17. a. .375
100– < 150 11 0.11 .0022
b. .218
c. .242 150– < 200 21 0.21 .0042
d. The histogram is very positively skewed. 200– < 300 26 0.26 .0026
300– < 400 12 0.12 .0012
19. a. The number of subdivisions having no cul-de-sacs is 400– < 500 4 0.04 .0004
17/47 ¼ .362, or 36.2%. The proportion having at 500– < 600 3 0.03 .0003
least one cul-de-sac is 30/47 ¼ .638, or 63.8%.
600– < 900 2 0.02 .00007
100 1.00
y: Count Percent

0 17 36.17 c. .79
1 22 46.81
2 6 12.77
23. Class Freq Class Freq
3 1 2.13
5 1 2.13 10– < 20 8 1.1– < 1.2 2
N ¼ 47 20– < 30 14 1.2– < 1.3 6
.362, .638 30– < 40 8 1.3– < 1.4 7
40– < 50 4 1.4– < 1.5 9
50– < 60 3 1.5– < 1.6 6
b. z: Count Percent 60– < 70 2 1.6– < 1.7 4
70– < 80 1 1.7– < 1.8 5
0 13 27.66 40 1.8– < 1.9 1
1 11 23.40 40
2 3 6.38
3 7 14.89
4 5 10.64
The original distribution is positively skewed.
5 3 6.38
The transformation creates a much more symmetric,
6 3 6.38
mound-shaped histogram.
8 2 4.26
N ¼ 47
25. a. Class interval Freq Rel. Freq.
.894, .830
0–< 50 9 0.18
21. a. 50–< 100 19 0.38
Class Freq Rel freq 100–< 150 11 0.22
150–< 200 4 0.08
0– < 100 21 0.21 200–< 250 2 0.04
100– < 200 32 0.32 250–< 300 2 0.04
200– < 300 26 0.26 300–< 350 1 0.02
300– < 400 12 0.12 350–< 400 1 0.02
400– < 500 4 0.04 > ¼ 400 1 0.02
500– < 600 3 0.03 50 1.00
600– < 700 1 0.01
700– < 800 0 0.00
800– < 900 1 0.01
100 1.00
The distribution is skewed to the right, or positively
skewed. There is a gap in the histogram, and what
appears to be an outlier in the ‘500–550’ interval.
The histogram is skewed right, with a majority of
observations between 0 and 300 cycles. The class
holding the most observations is between 100 and 200
cycles.
816 Chapter 1

decreased to any value at least 370 without changing

b. Class interval Freq. Rel. Freq. the median.
d. 6.18 min; 6.16 min
2.25 < 2.75 2 0.04
2.75 < 3.25 2 0.04 35. a. 125.
3.25 < 3.75 3 0.06 b. If 127.6 is reported as 130, then the median is 130, a
substantial change. When there is rounding or grouping,
3.75 < 4.25 8 0.16
the median can be highly sensitive to a small change.
4.25 < 4.75 18 0.36
4.75 < 5.25 10 0.20 37. x~ ¼ 92; xtrð25Þ ¼ 95:07; xtrð10Þ ¼ 102:23; x ¼ 119:3
5.25 < 5.75 4 0.08 Positive skewness causes the mean to be larger than the
5.75 < 6.25 3 0.06 median. Trimming moves the mean closer to the median.
39. a. y ¼ x þ c, y~ ¼ x~ þ c
The distribution of the natural logs of the original data b. y ¼ cx, y~ ¼ c~
x
is much more symmetric than the original.
41. a. 25.8 b. 49.31 c. 7.02 d. 49.31
c. .56, .14.
43. a. 2887.6, 2888 b. 7060.3
29. d. The frequency distribution is:
45. 24.36
Relative Relative 47. $1,961,160
Class frequency Class frequency 49. 3.5; 1.3, 1.9, 2.0, 2.3, 2.5
0 < 150 .193 900 < 1050 .019 51. a. 1, 6, 5
150 < 300 .183 1050 < 1200 .029 b. The box plot shows positive skewness. The two
300 < 450 .251 1200 < 1350 .005 longest runs are extreme outliers.
450 < 600 .148 1350 < 1500 .004 c. outlier: greater than 13.5 or less than 6.5
600 < 750 .097 1500 < 1650 .001 extreme outlier: greater than 21 or less than 14
d. The largest observation could be decreased to 6
750 < 900 .066 1650 < 1800 .002
without affecting fs
1800 < 1950 .002
53. a. The mean is 27.82, the median is 26, and the 5%
The relative frequency distribution is almost unimodal trimmed mean is 27.38. The mean exceeds the
and exhibits a large positive skew. The typical middle median, in accord with positive skewness. The
value is somewhere between 400 and 450, although the trimmed mean is between the mean and median, as
skewness makes it difficult to pinpoint more exactly than you would expect.
this. b. There are two outliers at the high end and one at the
e. .775, .014 low end, but there are no extreme outliers. Because
f. .211 the median is in the lower half of the box, the upper
whisker is longer than the lower whisker, and there are
31. a. 5.24 two high outliers compared to just one low outlier, the
b. The median, 2, is much lower because of positive plot suggests positive skewness.
skewness.
c. Trimming the largest and smallest observations yields 55. The two distributions are centered in about the same
the 5.9% trimmed mean, 4.4, which is between the place, but one machine is much more variable than the
mean and median. other. The more precise machine produced one outlier,
but this part would not be an outlier if judged by the
33. a. A stem-and leaf display: distribution of the other machine.
32 55 Stem: ones 57. All of the Indian salaries are below the first quartile of
33 49 Leaf: tenths Yankee salaries. There is much more variability in the
34 Yankee salaries. Neither team has any outliers.
35 6699
61. The three flow rates yield similar uniformities, but the
36 34469 values for the 160 flow rate are a little higher.
37 03345
38 9 63. a. 9.59, 59.41. The standard deviations are large, so it is
39 2347 certainly not true that repeated measurements are
40 23 identical.
b. .396, .323. In terms of the coefficient of variation, the
41
HC emissions are more variable.
42 4
65. 10.65
The display is reasonably symmetric, so the mean and 67. a. y ¼ a
x þ b: s2y ¼ a2 s2x :
median will be close. b. 100.78, .572
b. 370.7, 369.50.
c. The largest value (currently 424) could be increased
by any amount without changing the median. It can be
 Chapter 2 817

69. The mean is .93 and the standard deviation is .081. The
distribution is fairly symmetric with a central peak, as
shown by the stem and leaf display:
Leaf unit ¼ 0.010
7 7
8 11
8 556
9 22333344
9 55
10 04
10 55
71. a. Mode ¼ .93. It occurs four times in the data set.
b. The Modal Category is the one in which the most
observations occur.
73. The measures that are sensitive to outliers are the mean
and the midrange. The mean is sensitive because all
values are used in computing it. The midrange is the
most sensitive because it uses only the most extreme
values in its computation.
The median, the trimmed mean, and the midfourth are
less sensitive to outliers. The median is the most resistant
to outliers because it uses only the middle value (or
values) in its computation. The midfourth is also quite
resistant because it uses the fourths. The resistance of the
trimmed mean increases with the trimming percentage.
75. a. s2y ¼ s2x and sy ¼ sx b. s2z ¼ 1 and sz ¼ 1
77. b. .552, .102 c. 30 d. 19
7. a. {111, 112, 113, 121, 122, 123, 131, 132, 133, 211,
212, 213, 221, 222, 223, 231, 232, 233, 311, 312, 313,
321, 322, 323, 331, 332, 333}
b. {111, 222, 333}
c. {123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321}
d. {111, 113, 131, 133, 311, 313, 331, 333}
9. a. S ¼ {BBBAAAA, BBABAAA, BBAABAA,
BBAAABA, BBAAAAB, BABBAAA, BABABAA,
BABAABA, BABAAAB, BAABBAA, BAABABA,
BAABAAB, BAAABBA, BAAABAB, BAAAABB,
ABBBAAA, ABBABAA, ABBAABA, ABBAAAB,
ABABBAA, ABABABA, ABABAAB, ABAABBA,
ABAABAB, ABAAABB, AABBBAA, AABBABA,
AABBAAB, AABABBA, AABABAB, AABAABB,
AAABBBA, AAABBAB, AAABABB, AAAABBB}
b. {AAAABBB, AAABABB, AAABBAB, AABAABB,
AABABAB}
13. a. .07 b. .30 c. .57
15. a. They are awarded at least one of the first two projects,
.36.
b. They are awarded neither of the first two projects, .64.
c. They are awarded at least one of the projects, .53.
d. They are awarded none of the projects, .47.
e. They are awarded only the third project, .17.
f. Either they fail to get the first two or they are awarded
the third, .75.
17. a. .572 b. .879
19. a. SAS and SPSS are not the only packages.
b. .7 c. .8 d. .2

79. a. There may be a tendency to a repeating pattern. 21. a. .8841 b. .0435

b. The value .1 gives a much smoother series. 23. a. .10 b. .18, .19 c. .41 d. .59 e. .31 f. .69
c. The smoothed value depends on all previous values of
the time series, but the coefficient decreases with k. 25. a. 1/15 b. 6/15 c. 14/15 d. 8/15
d. As t gets large, the coefficient (1 – a)t–1 decreases to
zero, so there is decreasing sensitivity to the initial 27. a. .98 b. .02 c. .03 d. .24
value. 29. a. 1/9 b. 8/9 c. 2/9
31. a. 20 b. 60 c. 10
Chapter 2 33. a. 243 b. 3645, 10
1. a. A\B0 b. A[B c. (A\B0 ) [ (B\A0 ) 35. .0679
3. a. S ¼ {1324, 1342, 1423, 1432, 2314, 2341, 2413, 37. .2
2431, 3124, 3142, 4123, 4132, 3214, 3241,
4213, 4231} 39. .0456
b. A ¼ {1324, 1342, 1423, 1432}
41. a. .0839 b. .24975 c. .1998
c. B ¼ {2314, 2341, 2413, 2431, 3214, 3241, 4213,
4231} 43. a. 1/15 b. 1/3 c. 2/3
d. A[B ¼ {1324, 1342, 1423, 1432, 2314, 2341, 2413,
2431, 3214, 3241, 4213, 4231} 45. a. .447, .5, .2
A\B ¼ ∅ b. P(A|C) ¼ .4, the fraction of ethnic group C that has
0
A ¼ {2314, 2341, 2413, 2431, 3124, 3142, 4123, blood type A.
4132, 3214, 3241, 4213, 4231} P(C|A) ¼ .447, the fraction of those with blood group
A that are of ethnic group C.
5. a. A ¼ { SSF, SFS, FSS } c. .211
b. B ¼ { SSS, SSF, SFS, FSS }
c. C ¼ { SSS, SSF, SFS } 47. a. Of those with a Visa card, .5 is the proportion who also
d. C0 ¼ { SFF, FSS, FSF, FFS, FFF } have a Master Card.
A[C ¼ { SSS, SSF, SFS, FSS } b. Of those with a Visa card, .5 is the proportion who do
A\C ¼ { SSF, SFS } not have a Master Card.
B[C ¼ { SSS, SSF, SFS, FSS }
B\C ¼ { SSS SSF, SFS }
818 Chapter 3

c. Of those with Master Card, .625 is the proportion

who also have a Visa Card.
Chapter 3
d. Of those with Master Card, .375 is the proportion
1. S : FFF SFF FSF FFS FSS SFS SSF SSS
who do not have a Visa Card.
e. Of those with at least one of the two cards, .769 is the X: 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 3
proportion who have a Visa card.
3. M ¼ the absolute value of the difference between the
49. .217, .178
outcomes, with possible values 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6;
51. .436, .582 W ¼ 1 if the sum of the two resulting numbers is even
and W ¼ 0 otherwise, a Bernoulli random variable.
53. .0833
5. No, X can be a Bernoulli random variable where a
59. a. .067 b. .509 success is an outcome in B, with B a particular subset
of the sample space.
61. .287
7. a. Possible values are 0, 1, 2, . . ., 12; discrete
63. a. 76.5% b. .235
b. With N ¼ # on the list, values are 0, 1, 2, . . . , N;
65. .466, .288, .247 discrete
c. Possible values are 1, 2, 3, 4, . . . ; discrete
67. a. Because of independence, the conditional probability d. { x: 0 < x < 1 } if we assume that a rattlesnake can
is the same as the unconditional probability, .3. be arbitrarily short or long; not discrete
b. .82 c. .146 e. With c ¼ amount earned per book sold, possible
values are 0, c, 2c, 3c, . . . , 10,000c; discrete
71. .349, .651, (1  p)n, 1  (1  p)n
f. { y: 0  y  14} since 0 is the smallest possible pH
73. .99999969, .226 and 14 is the largest possible pH; not discrete
g. With m and M denoting the minimum and maximum
75. .9981 possible tension, respectively, possible values are {
x: m  x  M }; not discrete
77. Yes, no
h. Possible values are 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, . . . — i.e., 3(1),
79. a. 2p  p2 b. 1  (1  p)n c. (1  p)3 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), . . .giving a first element, etc,; discrete
d. .9 + .1(1  p)3 e. .0137
9. a. X is a discrete random variable with possible values
81. .8588, .9896 {2, 4, 6, 8, . . .}
b. X is a discrete random variable with possible values
83. 2p(1  p) {2, 3, 4, 5, . . .}
85. a. 1/3, .444 b. .15 c. .291 11. a. p(4) ¼ .10 c. .45, .25
87. .45, .32 13. a. .70 b. .45 c. .55 d. .71 e. .65 f. .45
89. a. 1/120 b. 1/5 c. 1/5 15. a. (1,2) (1,3) (1,4) (1,5) (2,3) (2,4) (2,5) (3,4) (3,5) (4,5)
b. p(0) ¼ .3, p(1) ¼ .6, p(2) ¼ .1, p(x) ¼ 0 otherwise
91. .9046
c. F(0) 8¼ .30, F(1) ¼ .90, F(2) ¼ 1. The c.d.f. is
93. a. .904 b. .766 > 0
> x<0
<
:30 0  x<1
95. .008 FðxÞ ¼
> :90 1  x<2
>
:
97. .362, .348, .290 1 2x

99. a. P(G | R1 < R2 < R3) ¼ 2/3, so classify as granite if 17. a. .81 b. .162
R1 < R2 < R3. c. The fifth battery must be an A, and one of the first
b. P(G | R1 < R3 < R2) ¼ .294, so classify as basalt if four must also be an A, so
R1 < R3 < R2. p(5) ¼ P(AUUUA or UAUUA or UUAUA or
P(G | R3 < R1 < R2) ¼ 1/15, so classify as basalt if UUUAA) ¼ .00324
R3 < R1 < R2. d. P(Y ¼ y) ¼ (y  1)(.1)y2(.9)2, y ¼ 2,3,4,5,. . .
c. .175 d. p > 14/17
19. c. F(x) ¼ 0, x < 1, F(x) ¼ log10([x] + 1), 1  x  9,
101. a. 1/24 b. 3/8 F(x) ¼ 1, x > 9.
d. .602, .301
103. s ¼ 1
21. F(x) ¼ 0, x < 0; .10, 0  x < 1; .25, 1  x < 2; .45,
107. a. P(B0|survive) ¼ b0/[1  (b1 + b2)cd] 2  x < 3; .70, 3  x < 4; .90, 4  x < 5; .96,
P(B1|survive) ¼ b1(1  cd)/[1  (b1 + b2)cd] 5  x < 6; 1.00, 6  x
P(B2|survive) ¼ b2(1  cd)/[1  (b1 + b2)cd]
b. .712, .058, .231 23. a. p(1) ¼ .30, p(3) ¼ .10, p(4) ¼ .05, p(6) ¼ .15,
p(12) ¼ .40
b. .30, .60
25. a. p(x) ¼ (1/3)(2/3)x1, x ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .
b. p(y) ¼ (1/3)(2/3)y2, y ¼ 2, 3, 4, . . .
c. p(0) ¼ 1/6, p(z) ¼ (25/54)(4/9)z1, z ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, . . .
 Chapter 3 819

29. a. .60 b. $110 85. a. h(x; 10, 10, 20) b. .0325 c. h(x; n, n, 2n),
E(X) ¼ n/2, V(X) ¼ n2/[4(2n  1)]
31. a. 16.38, 272.298, 3.9936 b. 401 c. 2496 d. 13.66
87. a. nb(x; 2, .5) ¼ (x + 1).5x+2, x ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .
33. Yes, because S(1/x2) is finite. b. 3/16 c. 11/16 d. 2, 4
35. $700 89. nb(x; 6, .5), E(X) ¼ 6 ¼ 3(2)
37. E[h(X)] ¼ .408 > 1/3.5 ¼ .286, so you expect to win 93. a. .932 b. .065 c. .068 d. .491 e. .251
more if you gamble.
95. a. .011 b. .441 c. .554, .459 d. .944
39. V(X) ¼ V(X)
97. a. .491 b. .133
41. a. 32.5 b. 7.5
c. V(X) ¼ E[X(X–1)] + E(X)  [E(X)]2 99. a. .122, .808, .283 b. 12, 3.464 c. .530, .011
43. a. 1/4, 1/9, 1/16, 1/25, 1/100 101. a. .099 b. .135 c. 2
b. m ¼ 2.64, s ¼ 1.54, P(|X  m|  2s) ¼ .04 < .25,
P(|X  m|  3s) ¼ 0 < 1/9 103. a. 4 b. .215 c. 1.15 years
The actual probability can be far below the Chebyshev 105. a. .221 b. 6,800,000 c. p(x; 1608.5)
bound, so the bound is conservative.
c. 1/9, equal to the Chebyshev bound 111. b. 3.114, .405, .636
d. P(1) ¼ .02, P(0) ¼ .96, P(1) ¼ .02
113. a. b(x; 15, .75) b. .6865 c. .313 d. 45/4, 45/16
45. MX(t) ¼ .5et/(1–.5et), E(X) ¼ 2, V(X) ¼ 2 e. .309
47. pY(y) ¼ .75(.25)y1, y ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . . 115. .9914
49. E(X) ¼ 5, V(X) ¼ 4 117. a. p(x; 2.5) b. .067 c. .109
2 =2
51. MY ðtÞ ¼ et , E(X) ¼ 0, V(X) ¼ 1 119. 1.813, 3.05
53. E(X) ¼ 0, V(X) ¼ 2 121. p(2) ¼ p2 , p(3) ¼ (1  p)p2 , p(4) ¼ (1  p)p2,
p(x) ¼ [1  p(2)  . . .  p(x  3)](1  p)p2, x ¼ 5,
59. a. .850 b. .200 c. .200 d. .701 6, 7, . . . .
e. .851 f. .000 g. .570 Alternatively, p(x) ¼ (1  p)p(x  1) +
61. a. .354 b. .114 c. .919 p(1  p) p(x  2), x ¼ 5, 6, 7, . . . ; 99950841

63. a. .403 b. .787 c. .773 123. a. 0029 b. 0767, .9702

P
1
65. .1478 125. a. .135 b. .00144 c. ½pðx; 2Þ5
x¼0
67. .4068, assuming independence 127. 3.590

69. a. .0173 b. .8106, .4246 c. .0056, .9022, .5858 129. a. No b. .0273

71. For p ¼ .9 the probability is higher for B (.9963 versus 131. b. .6p(x; l) + .4p(x; m) c. (l + m)/2
.99 for A) d. (l + m)/2 + (l  m)2/4
For p ¼ .5 the probability is higher for A (.75 versus 133. .5
.6875 for B)
137. X ~ b(x; 25,p E(h(X)) ¼ 500p + 750,
p),ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
73. The tabulation for p > .5 is not needed.
shðXÞ ¼ 100 pð1  pÞ
75. a. 20, 16 (binomial, n ¼ 100, p ¼ .2) b. 70, 21 Independence and constant probability might not be
valid because of the effect that customers can have on
77. When p ¼ .5, the true probability for k ¼ 2 is .0414, each other. Also, store employees might affect customer
compared to the bound of .25. decisions.
When p ¼ .5, the true probability for k ¼ 3 is .0026,
compared to the bound of .1111. 139.
When p ¼ .75, the true probability for k ¼ 2 is .0652, X 0 1 2 3 4
compared to the bound of .25. p(x) .07776 .10368 .19008 .20736 .17280
When p ¼ .75, the true probability for k ¼ 3 is .0039,
compared to the bound of .1111. X 5 6 7 8
p(x) .13824 .06912 .03072 .01024
79. MnX(t) ¼ [p + (1  p)et]n, E(n  X) ¼ n(1  p),
V(n  X) ¼ np(1  p)
Intuitively, the means of X and n  X should add to n and
their variances should be the same.
81. a. .114 b. .879 c. .121 d. Use the binomial
distribution with n ¼ 15 and p ¼ .1
83. a. h(x; 15, 10, 20) b. .0325 c. .6966
820 Chapter 4

Chapter 4 55. a. .794 b. 5.88 c. 7.94 d. .265

57. No, because of symmetry.
1. a. 25 b. .5 c. 7/16
59. a. approximate, .0391; binomial, .0437
3. b. .5 c. 11/16 d. .6328 b. approximate, .99993; binomial, .99976
5. a. 3/8 b. 1/8 c. .2969 d. .5781 61. a. .7287 b. .8643, .8159
7. a. f ðxÞ ¼ for 25  x  35 and ¼ 0 otherwise
1
10 63. a. approximate, .9933; binomial, .9905
b. .2 c. .4 d. .2 b. approximate, .9874; binomial, .9837
c. approximate, .8051; binomial, .8066
9. a. .5618 b. .4382, .4382 c. .0709
67. a. .15866 b. .0013499 c. .999936658
11. a. 1/4
pffiffiffi b. 3/16 c. 15/16 Actual: .15866 .0013499 .999936658
d. 2 e. f(x) ¼ x/2 for 0  x < 2, and f(x) ¼ 0
d. .00000028665
otherwise
69. a. 120 b. 1.329 c. .371 d. .735 e. 0
13. a. 3 b. 0 for x  1, 1  1/x3 for x > 1
c. 1/8, .088 71. a. 5, 4 b. .715 c. .411
15. a. F(x) ¼ 0 for x  0, F(x) ¼ x3/8 for 0 < x < 2, 73. a. 1 b. 1 c. .982 d. .129
F(x) ¼ 1 for x  2
b. 1/64 c. .0137, .0137 d. 1.817 75. a. .449, .699, .148 b. .050, .018

17. b. 90th percentile of Y ¼ 1.8(90th percentile of X) + 32 77. a. \ Ai b. Exponential with l ¼ .05

c. 100 pth percentile of Y ¼ a(100 pth percentile of c. Exponential with parameter nl
X) + b
83. a. .8257, .8257, .0636 b. .6637 c. 172.73
19. a. 1.5, .866 b. .9245
87. a. .9296 b. .2975 c. 98.18
21. a. .8182, .1113 b. .044
89. a. 68.03, 122.09 b. .3196 c. .7257, skewness
23. a. A + (B  A)p pffiffiffiffiffi 91. a. 149.157, 223.595 b. .957 c. .0416
b. (A + B)/2, (B  A)2/12, ðB  AÞ= 12
d. 148.41 e. 9.57 f. 125.90
c. (Bn+1  An+1)/[(n + 1)(B  A)]
93. a ¼ b
25. 314.79
95. b. G(a + b) G(m + b) /[G(a + b + m ) G(b)], b/( a + b)
27. 248, 3.6
97. Yes, since the pattern in the plot is quite linear.
29. 1/(1  t/4), 1/4, 1/16
99. Yes
31. 100p, 30p
101. Yes
33. f ðxÞ ¼ 10
1
for 5  x  5 and ¼ 0 otherwise
103. Form a new variable, the logarithms of the rainfall
35. a. M(t) ¼ .15 e.5t/(.15  t), t < .15; E(X) ¼ 7.167,
values, and then construct a normal plot for the new
V(X) ¼ 44.44
variable. Because of the linearity of this plot, normality
b. E(X) ¼ 7.167, V(X) ¼ 44.44
is plausible.
37. M(t) ¼ .15/(.15  t), E(X) ¼ 6.667, V(X) ¼ 44.44
105. The normal plot has a nonlinear pattern showing
This distribution is shifted left by .5, so the mean differs
positive skewness.
by .5 but the variance is the same.
107. The plot deviates from linearity, especially at the low
39. a. .4850 b. .3413 c. .4938 d. .9876
end, where the smallest three observations are too small
e. .9147 f. .9599 g. .9104 h. .0791
relative to the others. The plot works for any l because l
i. .0668 j. .9876
is a scale parameter.
41. a. 1.34 b. 1.34 c. .674 d. .674
109. fY ( y) ¼ 2/y3, y > 1
e. 1.555
111. fY ðyÞ ¼ yey =2
2
,y>0
43. a. .9772 b. .5 c. .9104 d. .8413
e. .2417 f. .6826 113. fY ( y) ¼ 1/16, 0 < y < 16
45. a. .7977 b. .0004 115. fY ( y) ¼ 1/[p(1 + y2)]
c. The top 5% are the values above .3987.
117. Y ¼ X2/16
47. The second machine pffiffiffi
119. fY ðyÞ ¼ 1=½2 y, 0 < y < 1
49. a. .2525 b. 39.96 pffiffiffi pffiffiffi
121. fY ðyÞ ¼ 1=½4 y, 0 < y < 1, fY ðyÞ ¼ 1=½8 y,
51. .0510 1<y<9
53. a. .8664 b. .0124 c. .2718 125. pY ( y) ¼ (1  p)y1p, y ¼ 1, 2, 3, . . .
 Chapter 5 821

127. a. .4 b. .6 c. F(x) ¼ x/25, 0  x  25; 9. a. .3/380,000 b. .3024 c. .3593

F(x) ¼0, x < 0; F(x) ¼ 1, x > 25 d. 12.5, 7.22 d. 10Kx2 + .05, 20  x  30 e. no
  
129. b. F(x) ¼ 1  16/(x + 4)2, x  0; F(x) ¼ 0, x < 0 11. a. pðx; yÞ ¼ el lx =x! ey yy =y! for x ¼ 0,  1, 2, . . .;
c. .247 d. 4 e. 16.67 y ¼ 0, 1, 2, . . . b. ely ð1 þ l þ yÞ
c. ely ðl þ yÞm =m!, Poisson with parameter l + y
131. a. .6563 b. 41.55 c. .3179
13. a. exy, x  0, y  0 b. .3996 c. .5940
133. a. .00025, normal approximation; .000859, binomial d. .3298
b. .0888, normal approximation; .0963, binomial
15. a. FðyÞ ¼ 1  2e2ly þ e3ly for y  0, F(y) ¼ 0 for
135. a. F(x) ¼1.5(1  1/x), 1  x  3; F(x) ¼0, x < 1; y < 0; f ðyÞ ¼ 4le2ly  3e3ly for y  0, f(y) ¼ 0
F(x) ¼ 1, x > 3 b. .9, .4 c. 1.6479 for y < 0
d. .5333 e. .2662 b. 2/(3l)
137. a. 1.075, 1.075 b. .0614, .3331 c. 2.476 b.p1/p
17. a. .25 ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffic. 2/p
d. fX ðxÞ ¼ 2pRffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2  x2 ðpR2 Þ for R  x  R,
139. b. 95,693, 1/3 
fY ðyÞ ¼ 2 R2  y2 ðpR2 Þ for R  y  R, no
141. b. F(x) ¼ .5e.2x, x  0; F(x) ¼ 1  .5e.2x, x > 0
c. .5, .6648, .2555, .6703 19. .15
143. a. k ¼ (a  1)5 a1
b. F(x) ¼ 0, x  5; 21. L2
F(x) ¼ 1  (5/x) a1, x > 5 c. 5(a  1)/(a  2)
23. 1/4 h
145. b. .4602, .3636 c. .5950 d. 140.178
25. 2/3
147. a. Weibull b. .5422
27. a. .1058 b. .0128
149. a. l b. a xa 1/ba 2
c. FðxÞ ¼ 1  eaðxx =ð2bÞÞ , 0  x  b; F(x) ¼ 0, 37. a. fX(x) ¼ 2x, 0 < x < 1, fX(x) ¼ 0 elsewhere
x < 0; F(x) ¼ 1  eab/2, x > b b. fY|X(y| x) ¼ 1/x, 0 < y < x < 1 c. .6
d. no, the domain is not a rectangle
f ðxÞ ¼ að1  x=bÞeaðxx =ð2bÞÞ , 0  x  b;
2

e. E(Y| X ¼ x) ¼ x/2, a linear function of x

f(x) ¼ 0, x < 0, f(x) ¼ 0, x > b f. V(Y| X ¼ x) ¼ x2/12
This gives total probability less than 1, so some
probability is located at infinity (for items that last 39. a. fX(x) ¼ 2e2x, 0 < x < 1, fX(x) ¼ 0, x  0
forever). b. fY|X(y| x) ¼ ey+x, 0 < x < y < 1
c. P(Y > 2| x ¼ 1) ¼ 1/e
151. mR  v/20, sR  v/800 d. no, the domain is not rectangular
155. F(q*) ¼ .818 e. E(Y| X ¼ x) ¼ x + 1, a linear function of x
f. V(Y| X ¼ x) ¼ 1
41. a. E(Y| X ¼ x) ¼ x/2, a linear function of x; V(Y|
Chapter 5 X ¼ x) ¼ x2/12
b. f(x, y) ¼ 1/x, 0 < y < x < 1
1. a. .20 b. .42 c. The probability of at least one c. fY(y) ¼ ln(y), 0 < y < 1
hose being in use at each pump is .70. d. E(Y) ¼ 1/4, V(Y) ¼ 7/144
d. x 0 1 2 y 0 1 2 e. E(Y) ¼ 1/4, V(Y) ¼ 7/144
pX(x) .16 .34 .50 pY(y) .24 .38 .38 43. a. pY|X(0|1) ¼ 4/17, pY|X(1|1) ¼ 10/17, pY|X(2|1) ¼ 3/17
P(X  1) ¼ .50 b. pY|X(0|2) ¼ .12, pY|X(1|2) ¼ .28, pY|X(2|2) ¼ .60
e. dependent, .30 ¼ P(X ¼ 2 and Y ¼ 2) 6¼ P(X ¼ 2) c. .40
P(Y ¼ 2) ¼ (.50)(.38) d. pX|Y(0|2) ¼ 1/19, pX|Y(1|2) ¼ 3/19, pX|Y(2|2) ¼ 15/19

3. a. .15 b. .40 c. .22 ¼ P(A) ¼ P(|X1  X2|  2) 45. a. E(Y| X ¼ x) ¼ x2/2 b. V(Y| X ¼ x) ¼ x4/12
d. .17, .46 c. fY(y) ¼ y–.5  1, 0 < y < 1
e. x1 0 1 2 3 4 47. a. p(1,1) ¼ p(2,2) ¼ p(3,3) ¼ 1/9, p(2,1) ¼ p(3,1)
p1(x1) .19 .30 .25 .14 .12 ¼ p(3,2) ¼ 2/9
E(X1) ¼ 1.7 b. pX(1) ¼ 1/9, pX(2) ¼ 3/9, pX(3) ¼ 5/9
c. pY|X(1|1) ¼ 1, pY|X(1|2) ¼ 2/3, pY|X(2|2) ¼ 1/3,
f. x2 0 1 2 3 pY|X(1|3) ¼ .4, pY|X(2|3) ¼ .4, pY|X(3|3) ¼ .2
d. E(Y| X ¼ 1) ¼ 1, E(Y| X ¼ 2) ¼ 4/3,
p2(x2) .19 .30 .28 .23
E(Y| X ¼ 3) ¼ 1.8, no
g. 0 ¼ p(4 , 0) 6¼ p1(4)  p2(0) ¼ (.12)(.19) so the two e. V(Y| X ¼ 1) ¼ 0, V(Y| X ¼ 2) ¼ 2/9,
variables are not independent. V(Y| X ¼ 3) ¼ .56
5. a. .54 b. .00018 49. a. pX|Y(1|1) ¼ .2, pX|Y(2|1) ¼ .4, pX|Y(3|1) ¼ .4,
pX|Y(2|2) ¼ 1/3, pX|Y(3|2) ¼ 2/3, pX|Y(3|3) ¼ 1
7. a. .030 b. .120 c. .10, .30 d. .38 b. E(X| Y ¼ 1) ¼ 2.2, E(X| Y ¼ 2) ¼ 8/3,
e. yes, p(x,y) ¼ pX(x)  pY(y) E(X| Y ¼ 3) ¼ 3, no
c. V(X| Y ¼ 1) ¼ .56, V(X| Y ¼ 2) ¼ 2/9,
V(X| Y ¼ 3) ¼ 0
822 Chapter 6

51. a. 2x – 10 b. 9 c. 3 d. .0228 d. F(x, y) ¼ .6x2y + .4xy3, 0  x  1; 0  y  1;

F(x, y) ¼ 0, x  0; F(x, y) ¼ 0, y  0;
53. a. pX(x) ¼ .1, x ¼ 0, 1, 2, . . ., 9; pY|X(y| x) ¼ 1/9, y ¼ 0, F(x, y) ¼ .6x2 + .4x, 0  x  1, y > 1;
1, 2, . . ., 9, y 6¼ x; F(x, y) ¼ .6y + .4y3, x > 1, 0  y  1; F(x, y) ¼ 1,
pX,Y(x, y) ¼ 1/90, x, y ¼ 0, 1, 2, . . ., 9, y 6¼ x x > 1, y > 1
b. E(Y| X ¼ x) ¼ 5  x/9, x ¼ 0, 1, 2, . . ., 9, a linear P(.25  X  .75, .25  Y  .75) ¼ .23125
function of x e. F(x, y) ¼ 6x2y2, x + y  1, 0  x  1; 0  y  1,
55. a. .6x, .24x b. 60 c. 60 x  0, y  0
F(x, y) ¼ 3x4  8x3 + 6x2 + 3y4  8y3 + 6y2  1,
57. a. .1410 b. .1165 x + y > 1, x  1, y  1
With positive correlation, the deviations from their means F(x, y) ¼ 0, x  0; F(x, y) ¼ 0, y  0;
of X and Y are likely to have the same sign. F(x, y) ¼ 3x4 – 8x3 + 6x2 , 0  x  1, y > 1
F(x, y) ¼ 3y4 – 8y3 + 6y2 , 0  y  1, x > 1
59. a. If U ¼ X1 + X2, fU(u) ¼ u2, 0 < u < 1, fU(u) ¼ F(x, y) ¼ 1, x > 1, y > 1
2u – u2, 1 < u < 2, fU(u) ¼ 0, elsewhere
b. If V ¼ X2  X1, fV(v) ¼ 2  2v, 0 < v < 1, 91. a. 2x, x b. 40 c. .100
fV(v) ¼ 0, elsewhere
93. MW(t) ¼ 2/[(1–1000t)(2–1000t)], 1500
61. 4y3[(ln(y3)]2, 0 < y3 < 1
65. a. g5(y) ¼ 5y4/105, 25/3 b. 20/3 c. 5
d. 1.409 Chapter 6
3
67. gY5 jY1 ðy5 j4Þ ¼ ½2=3½ðy5  4Þ=6 , 4 < y5 < 10; 8.8 1. a. x 25 32.5 40 45 52.5 65
69. 1/(n + 1), 2/(n + 1), 3/(n + 1), . . ., n/(n + 1) xÞ
pð .04 .20 .25 .12 .30 .09
h i2
Gðnþ1ÞGðiþ1=yÞ Gðnþ1ÞGðiþ2=yÞ Gðnþ1ÞGðiþ1=yÞ
71. GðiÞGðnþ1þ1=yÞ , GðiÞGðnþ1þ2=yÞ  GðiÞGðnþ1þ1=yÞ  ¼ 44:5 ¼ m
EðXÞ
73. a. .0238 b. $2025 b. s2 0 112.5 312.5 800
  2
75. gi;j yi ; yj ¼ ði1Þ!ðji1Þ!ðnjÞ! Fðyi Þ
n! i1
ðFðyj Þ  Fðyi ÞÞ ji1 nj
ð1  Fðyj ÞÞ f ðyi Þf ðyj Þ, p(s ) .38 .20 .30 .12
1 < yi < yj < 1
E(S ) ¼ 212.25 ¼ s
2 2
1 Ð
77. a. fW ðw2 Þ ¼ nðn  1Þ 1
2
ðFðw1 þ w2 Þ  Fðw1 ÞÞn2 f ðw1 Þf ðw1 þ w2 Þdw1
b. fW2 ðw2 Þ ¼ nðn  1Þw2n2 ð1  w2 Þ, 0 < w2 < 1 3. x/n 0 .1 .2 .3 .4

79. f(x) ¼ ex/2  ex, x  0; f(x) ¼ 0, x < 0. p(x/n) 0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0008 0.0055

81. a. 3/81,250 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1.0

8 ð 30x
>
>
< kxydy ¼ kð250x  10x2 Þ; 0  x  20 0.0264 0.0881 0.2013 0.3020 0.2684 0.1074
b. fX ðxÞ ¼ ð 30x
20x
>
>
: kxydy ¼ kð450x  30x þ 2x Þ; 20<x  30
2 1 3
0 5. a. x 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
fY(y) ¼ fX(y) dependent
c. .3548 d. 25.969 e. 32.19, .894 xÞ
pð .16 .24 .25 .20 .10 .04 .01
f. 7.651
b. PðX  2:5Þ ¼ :85
83. 7/6 c. r 0 1 2 3

87. c. If p(0) ¼ .3, p(1) ¼ .5, p(2) ¼ .2, then 1 is the smaller of p(r) .30 .40 .22 .08
the two roots, so extinction is certain in this case with m < 1.
If p(0) ¼ .2, p(1) ¼ .5, p(2) ¼ .3, then 2/3 is the smaller of d. .24
the two roots, so extinction is not certain with m > 1. 7.
x pð
xÞ x pð
xÞ x pð
xÞ
89. a. P((X,Y) ∈ A) ¼ F(b, d)  F(b, c)  F(a, d) + F(a, b)
b. P((X,Y) ∈ A) ¼ F(10, 6)  F(10, 1)  F(4, 6) + F(4, 1) 0.0 0.000045 1.4 0.090079 2.8 0.052077
P((X,Y) ∈ A) ¼ F(b, d)  F(b, c–1) – F(a–1, d) + 0.2 0.000454 1.6 0.112599 3.0 0.034718
F(a–1, b–1) 0.4 0.002270 1.8 0.125110 3.2 0.021699
c. At each (x*, y*), F(x*, y*) is the sum of the 0.6 0.007567 2.0 0.125110 3.4 0.012764
probabilities at points (x, y) such that x  x* and 0.8 0.018917 2.2 0.113736 3.6 0.007091
y  y* 1.0 0.037833 2.4 0.094780 3.8 0.003732
F(x, y) x 1.2 0.063055 2.6 0.072908 4.0 0.001866
100 250
200 .50 1
y 100 .30 .50
0 .20 .25
 Chapter 7 823

11. a. 12, .01 75. .8340

b. 12, .005
c. With less variability, the second sample is more 77. a. r ¼ s2W =ðs2W þ s2E Þ
closely concentrated near 12. b. r ¼ .9999

13. a. No, the distribution is clearly not symmetric. 79. 26, 1.64
A positively skewed distribution —perhaps Weibull, 81. If Z1 and Z2 are independent standard normal
lognormal, or gamma. observations, then let
b. .0746 pffiffiffi
X ¼ 5Z1 + 100, Y ¼ 2ð:5Z1 þ ð 3=2ÞZ2 Þ þ 50
c. .00000092. No, 82 is not a reasonable value for m.
15. a. .8366 b. no
17. 43.29
Chapter 7
19. a. .9802, .4802 b. 32 1. a. 113.73, X b. 113, Xe
c. 12.74, S, an estimator for the population standard
21. a. .9839 b. .8932 deviation
d. The sample proportion of students exceeding 100 in
27. a. 87,850, 19,100,116 IQ is 30/33 ¼ .91
b. In case of dependence, the mean calculation is still e. .112, S=X
valid, but not the variance calculation.
c. .9973 3. a. 1.3481, X b. 1.3481, X
c. 1.78, X þ 1:282S
29. a. .2871 b. .3695 d. .67 e. .0846
31. .0317; Because each piece is played by the same 5. a. 1,703,000 b. 1,599,730 c. 1,601,438
musicians, there could easily be some dependence. If
they perform the first piece slowly, then they might 7. a. 120.6 b. 1,206,000, 10,000X c. .8
perform the second piece slowly, too, d. 120, Xe
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
33. a. 45 b. 68.33 c. 1, 13.67 d. 5, 68.33 9. a. X, 2.113 b. l=n, .119
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
35. a. 50, 10.308 b. .0076 c. 50 d. 111.56 11. b. p1 ð1  p1 Þ=n1 þ p2 ð1  p2 Þ=n2
e. 131.25 c. In part (b) replace p1 with X1/n1 and replace p2 with
X2/n2
37. a. .9615 b. .0617 d. .245 e. .0411
39. a. .5, n(n + 1)/4 b. .25, n(n + 1)(2n + 1)/24 13. a. .9876 b. .6915
41. 10:52.74 ^ ¼ P X2 =ð2nÞ b. 74.505
15. a. y i
43. .48 17. b. 4/9
45. b. MY(t) ¼ 1/[1  t2/(2n)]n 19. a. p^ ¼ 2^
l  :30 ¼ :20 c. p^ ¼ ð100^
l  9Þ=70
w2n
47. Because is the sum of n independent random variables, 21. a. .15 b. yes c. .4437
each distributed as w21 , the Central Limit Theorem applies.
^ ¼ ð2
23. a. y x  1Þ=ð1  xÞ ¼ 3
53. a. 3.2 b. 10.04, the square of the answer to (a) b. ^
y ¼ ½n=S lnðxi Þ  1 ¼ 3:12
57. a. n2/(n2  2), n2 > 2 25. p^ ¼ r=ðr þ xÞ ¼ :15 This is the number of successes
b. 2n22 ðn1 þ n2  2Þ=½n1 ðn2  2Þ2 ðn2  4Þ, n2 > 4 over the number of trials, the same as the result in
61. a. 4.32 Exercise 21. It is not the same as the estimate of
Exercise 17.
65. a. The approximate value, .0228, is smaller because of P 2 P 2
skewness in the chi-squared distribution 27. a. s^2 ¼ 1n ^2 ¼ 1n
Xi b. s Xi
b. This approximation gives the answer .03237, agreeing P
^ ¼ X2 =ð2nÞ ¼ 74:505, the same as in Exercise 15
29. a. y i
with the software answer to this number of decimals. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b. ^
2y lnð2Þ ¼ 10:16
67. No, the sum of the percentiles is not the same as the
percentile of the sum, except that they are the same for 31. ^
l ¼  lnð^
pÞ=24 ¼ :0120
the 50th percentile. For all other percentiles, the
percentile of the sum is closer to the 50th percentile 33. No, statistician A does not have more information.
than is the sum of the percentiles Qn Pn
35. i¼1 xi ; i¼1 xi
69. a. 2360, 73.70 b. .9713
37. I(.5 max(x1, x2, . . ., xn)  y  min(x1, x2, . . ., xn))
71. .9685
39. a. 2X(n  X)/[n(n  1)]
73. .9093 Independence is questionable because con- pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
sumption one day might be related to consumption the 41. a. X b. FððX  cÞ= 1  1=nÞ
next day.
824 Chapter 8

43. a. Vð~yÞ ¼ y2 =½nðn þ 2Þ b. y2/n
c. The variance in (a) is below the bound of (b), but the
theorem does not apply because the domain is a
function of the parameter.
45. a. x b. N(m, s2/n)
c. Yes, the variance is equal to the Cramér-Rao bound
d. The answer in (b) shows that the asymptotic
distribution of the theorem is actually exact here.
47. a. 2/s2
b. The answer in (a) is different from the answer,
1/(2s4), to 46(a), so the information does depend on
the parameterization.
33. a. (38.081, 38.439) b. (100.55, 101.19), yes
35. a. Assuming normality, a 95% lower confidence bound
is 8.11. When the bound is calculated from repeated
independent samples, roughly 95% of such bounds
should be below the population mean.
b. A 95% lower prediction bound is 7.03. When the
bound is calculated from repeated independent
samples, roughly 95% of such bounds should be
below the value of an independent observation.
37. a. 378.85 b. 413.09 c. (333.88, 407.50)
39. 95% prediction interval: (.0498, .0772)

49. ^l ¼ 6=ð6t6  t1  . . .  t5 Þ ¼ 6=ðx1 þ 2x2 þ . . . þ 6x6 Þ ¼ :0436, 41. a. (169.36, .179.37)

where x1 ¼ t1, x2 ¼ t2  t1, . . ., x6 ¼ t6  t5 b. (134.30, 214.43), which includes 152
c. The second interval is much wider, because it allows
53. 1.275, s ¼ 1.462 for the variability of a single observation.
d. The normal probability plot gives no reason to doubt
s2 Þ ¼ s2 =2, so 2^
55. b. no, Eð^ s2 is unbiased normality. This is especially important for part (b), but
59. .416, .448 the large sample size implies that normality is not so
critical for (a).
61. d(X) ¼ (1)X, d(200) ¼ 1, d(199) ¼ 1
 45. a. 18.307 b. 3.940 c. .95 d. .10
^ ¼ P xi yi P x2 ¼ 30:040, the estimated minutes
63. b. b Pi ^ i Þ2 ¼ 16:912; 47. b. (2.34, 5.60)
^ ¼ 1n ðyi  bx
per item; s 2
^ ¼ 751
25b 49. a. (7.91, 12.00)
b. Because of an outlier, normality is questionable for
this data set.
Chapter 8 c. In MINITAB, put the data in C1 and execute the
following macro 999 times
1. a. 99.5% b. 85% c. 2.97 d. 1.15 Let k3 ¼ N(c1)
sample k3 c1 c3;
3. a. A narrower interval has a lower probability b. No, replace.
m is not random let k1 ¼ mean(c3)
c. No, the interval refers to m, not individual observations stack k1 c5 c5
d. No, a probability of .95 does not guarantee 95 end
successes in 100 trials
51. a. (26.61, 32.94)
5. a. (4.52, 5.18) b. (4.12, 5.00) c. 55 d. 94 b. Because of outliers, the weight gains do not seem
7. Increase n by a factor of 4. Decrease the width by a factor normally distributed.
of 5. c. In MINITAB, see Exercise 49(c).
pffiffiffi 53. a. (38.46, 38.84)
9. a. ðx  1:645 s=
pffiffiffi n; 1Þ; (4.57, 1)
x  za  s= n; 1Þ
b. ð b. Although the normal probability plot is not perfectly
pffiffiffi straight, there is not enough deviation to reject
c. ð1; x þ za  s= nÞ; (1, 59.7) normality.
11. 950; .8724 (normal approximation), .8731 (binomial) c. In MINITAB, see Exercise 49(c).

13. a. (.99, 1.07) b. 158 55. a. (169.13, 205.43)

b. Because of an outlier, normality is questionable for
15. a. 80% b. 98% c. 75% this data set.
c. In MINITAB, see Exercise 49(c).
17. .06, which is positive, suggesting that the population
mean change is positive 57. a. In MINITAB, put the data in C1 and execute the
following macro 999 times
19. (.513, .615) Let k3 ¼ N(c1)
21. .218 sample k3 c1 c3;
replace.
23. (.439, .814) let k1 ¼ stdev(c3)
stack k1 c5 c5
25. a. 381 b. 339 end
29. a. 1.341 b. 1.753 c. 1.708 d. 1.684 b. Assuming normality, a 95% confidence interval for
e. 2.704 s is (3.541, 6.578), but the interval is inappropriate
because the normality assumption is clearly not
31. a. 2.228 b. 2.131 c. 2.947 d. 4.604 satisfied.
e. 2.492 f. 2.715
 Chapter 9 825

59. a. (.198, .230) b. .048 21. Test H0: m ¼ .5 vs. Ha: m 6¼ .5

c. A 90% prediction interval is (.149, .279) a. Do not reject H0 because t.025,12 ¼ 2.179 > |1.6|
b. Do not reject H0 because t.025,12 ¼ 2.179 > |1.6|
61. 246 c. Do not reject H0 because t.005,24 ¼ 2.797 > |2.6|
63. a. A 95% confidence interval for the mean is (.163, d. Reject H0 because t.005,24 ¼ 2.797 < |3.9|
.174). Yes, this interval is below the interval for 59(a). 23. Because t ¼ 2.24  1.708 ¼ t.05,25, reject H0: m ¼ 360.
b. (.089, .326) Yes, this suggests contradiction of prior belief.
65. (0.1263, 0.3018) 25. Because |z| ¼ 3.37  1.96, reject the null hypothesis.
67. a. yes b. (196.88, 222.62) It appears that this population exceeds the national
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi average in IQ.
^ ¼ s2 =Sx2 , s^ ¼ s= Sx2
69. c. VðbÞ i
i b
27. a. no, t ¼ .02 b. 58
d. Put the xi’s far ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0 to minimize sb^
pfrom c. n ¼ 20 total observations
^  ta=2;n1 s= Sx2 , (29.93, 30.15)
e. b i

73. a. .00985 b. .0578 29. a. Because t ¼ .50 < 1.895 ¼ t.05,7 do not reject H0.
pffiffiffi pffiffiffi b. .73
x  ðs= nÞt:025;n1;d ; x  ðs= nÞt:975;n1;d Þ
75. a. ð
b. (3.01, 4.46) 31. Because t ¼ 1.24 > 1.397 ¼ t.10,8, we do not have
evidence to question the prior belief.
77. a. 1/2n b. n/2n c. (n + 1)/2n, 1  (n + 1)/2n1,
(29.9, 39.3) with confidence level .9785 35. a. The distribution is fairly symmetric, without outliers.
b. Because t ¼ 4.25  3.499 ¼ t.005,7, there is strong
79. a. P(A1\A2) ¼ .952 b. P(A1\A2)  .90 evidence to say that the amount poured differs from
c. P(A1\A2)  1  a1  a2 ; P(A1\A2\ . . . \ Ak) the industry standard, and indeed bartenders tend to
 1  a1  a2  . . . ak exceed the standard.
c. Yes, the test in (b) depends on normality, and a normal
probability plot gives no reason to doubt the
Chapter 9 assumption.
d. .643, .185, .016
1. a. yes b. no c. no d. yes e. no f. yes 37. a. Do not reject H0: p ¼ .10 in favor of Ha: p > .10
5. H0: s ¼ .05 vs. Ha: s < .05. Type I error: Conclude that because z ¼ 1.33 < 1.645. Because the null
the standard deviation is less than .05 mm when it is hypothesis is not rejected, there could be a type II
really equal to .05 mm. Type II error: Conclude that the error.
standard deviation is .05 mm when it is really less than b. .49, .27. c. 362
.05. 39. a. Do not reject H0: p ¼ .02 in favor of Ha: p < .02
7. A type I error here involves saying that the plant is not in because z ¼ 1.1 > 1.645. There is no strong
compliance when in fact it is. A type II error occurs when evidence suggesting that the inventory be postponed.
we conclude that the plant is in compliance when in fact it b. .195. c. <.0000001.
isn’t. A government regulator might regard the type II 41. a. Reject H0 because z ¼ 3.08  2.58. b. .03
error as being more serious.
43. Using n ¼ 25, the probability of 5 or more leaky faucets
9. a. R1 is .0980 if p ¼ .10, and the probability of 4 or fewer leaky
b. A type I error involves saying that the two companies faucets is .0905 if p ¼ .3. Thus, the rejection region is
are not equally favored when they are. A type II error 5 or more, a ¼ .0980, and b ¼ .0905.
involves saying that the two companies are equally
favored when they are not. 45. a. reject b. reject c. do not reject d. reject
c. binomial, n ¼ 25, p ¼ .5; .0433 e. do not reject
d. .3, .4881; .4, .8452; .6, .8452; .7, .4881
e. If only 6 favor the first company, then reject the null 47. a. .0778 b. .1841 c. .0250 d. .0066 e. .5438
hypothesis and conclude that the first company is not 49. a. P ¼ .0403 b. P ¼ .0176 c. P ¼ .1304
preferred. d. P ¼ .6532 e. P ¼ .0021 f. P ¼ .000022
11. a. H0: m ¼ 10 vs. Ha: m 6¼ 10 b. .0099 51. Based on the given data, there is no reason to believe
c. .5319. .0076 d. c ¼ 2.58 e. c ¼ 1.96 that pregnant women differ from others in terms of true
f. x ¼ 10:02, so do not reject H0 average serum receptor concentration.
g. Recalibrate if z  2.58 or z  2.58
53. a. Because the P-value is .17, no modification is
13. b. .00043, .0000075, less than .01 indicated. b. 997
15. a. .0301 b. .0030 c. .0040 55. Because t ¼ 1.759 and the P-value ¼ .089, which is
17. a. Because z ¼ 2.56 > 2.33, reject H0 b. .84 less than .10, reject H0: m ¼ 3.0 against a two-tailed
alternative at the 10% level. However, the P-value
c. 142 d. .0052 exceeds .05, so do not reject H0 at the 5% level. There
19. a. Because z ¼ 2.27 > 2.58, do not reject H0
b. .22 c. 22
826 Chapter 10
is just a weak indication that the percentage is not equal to
3% (lower than 3%).
57. a. Test H0: m ¼ 10 vs. Ha: m < 10
b. Because the P-value is .017 < .05, reject H0,
suggesting that the pens do not meet specifications.
c. Because the P-value is .045 > .01, do not reject H0,
suggesting there is no reason to say the lifetime is
inadequate.
d. Because the P-value is .0011, reject H0. There is good
evidence showing that the pens do not meet
specifications.
61. a. 98, .85, .43, .004, .0000002
b. .40, .11, .0062, .0000003
c. Because the null hypothesis will be rejected with high
probability, even with only slight departure from the
null hypothesis, it is not very useful to do a .01 level
test.
63. b. 36.61 c. yes
65. a. Sxi  c b. yes
67. Yes, the test is UMP for the alternative Ha : y > .5
because the tests for H0 : y ¼ .5 vs. Ha : y ¼ p0 all
have the same form for any p0 > .5.
69. b. .05
c. .04345, .05826; Because .04345 < .05, the test is not
unbiased.
d. .05114; not most powerful
71. b. The value of the test statistic is 3.041, so the P-value is
.081, compared to .089 for Exercise 55.
73. A sample size of 32 should suffice.
75. a. Test H0: m ¼ 2150pvs. ffiffiffi Ha: m > 2150
b. t ¼ ð
x  2150Þ=ðs= nÞ c. 1.33 d. .101
e. Do not reject H0 at the .05 level.
77. Because t ¼ .77 and the P-value is .23, there is no
evidence suggesting that coal increases the mean heat
flux.
79. Conclude that activation time is too slow at the .05 level,
but not at the .01 level.
81. A normal probability plot gives no reason to doubt the
normality assumption. Because the sample mean is 9.815,
giving t ¼ 4.75 and a (upper tail) P-value of .00007,
reject the null hypothesis at any reasonable level. The
true average flame time is too high.
83. Assuming normality, calculate t ¼ 1.70, which gives a
two tailed P-value of .102. Do not reject the null
hypothesis H0: m ¼ 1.75.
85. The P-value for a lower tail test is .0014 (normal
approximation, .0005), so it is reasonable to reject the
idea that p ¼ .75 and conclude that fewer than 75% of
mechanics can identify the problem.
87. Because t ¼ 6.43, giving an upper tail P-value of
.0000002, conclude that the population mean time
exceeds 15 minutes.
89. Because the P-value is .013 > .01, do not reject the null
hypothesis at the .01 level.
91. a. For the test of H0: m ¼ m0 vs. Ha: m > m0 at level a,
reject H0 if 2Sxi/m0  w2a;2n
For the test of H0: m ¼ m0 vs. Ha: m < m0 at level a,
reject H0 if 2Sxi/m0  w21a;2n
For the test of H0: m ¼ m0 vs. Ha: m 6¼ m0 at level a,
reject H0 if 2Sxi/m0  w2a=2;2n or
if 2Sxi/m0  w21a=2;2n
b. Because Sxi ¼ 737, the test statistic is 2Sxi/m0
¼ 19.65, which gives a P-value of .52. There is no
reason to reject the null hypothesis.
93. a. yes
Chapter 10
1. a. .4; it doesn’t b. .0724, .269
c. Although the CLT implies that the distribution will be
approximately normal when the sample sizes are each
100, the distribution will not necessarily be normal
when the sample sizes are each 10.
3. Do not reject H0 because z ¼ 1.76 < 2.33
5. a. Ha says that the average calorie output for sufferers is
more than 1 cal/cm2/min below that for non-sufferers.
Reject H0 in favor of Ha because z ¼ 2.90  2.33
b. .0019 c. .819 d. .66
7. Yes, because z ¼ 1.83  1.645.
9. a. x  y ¼ 6:2
b. z ¼ 1.14, two-tailed P-value ¼ .25, so do not reject
the null hypothesis that the population means are
equal.
c. No, the values are positive and the standard deviation
exceeds the mean.
d. 95% CI: (10.0, 29.8)
11. a. A 95% CI for the true difference, fast food mean – not
fast food mean is (219.6, 538.4)
b. The one-tailed P-value is .014, so reject the null
hypothesis of a 200-calorie difference at the .05
level, and conclude that yes, there is strong evidence.
13. 22. No.
15. b. It increases.
17. Because z ¼ 1.36, there is no reason to reject the
hypothesis of equal population means (p ¼ .17).
19. Because z ¼ .59, there is no reason to conclude that the
population mean is higher for the no-involvement group
(p ¼ .28).
21. Because t ¼ 3.35  3.30 ¼ t.001,42, yes, there is
evidence that experts do hit harder.
23. b. No c. Because |t| ¼ |.38| < 2.228 ¼ t.025,10, no,
there is no evidence of a difference.
25. Because the one-tailed P-value is .005  .01, conclude at
the .01 level that the difference is as stated.
This could result in a type I error.
27. Yes, because t ¼ 2.08 with P-value ¼ .046.
29 b. (127.6, 202.0) c. 131.8
 Chapter 10 827

31. Because t ¼ 1.82 with P-value .046  .05, conclude at # start with X in C1, Y in C2
the .05 level that the difference exceeds 1. let k3 ¼ N(c1)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi let k4 ¼ N(c2)
33. a. ðx  yÞ  ta=2;mþn2  sp m1 þ 1n sample k3 c1 c3;
b. (.24, 3.64) replace.
c. (.34, 3.74), which is wider because of the loss of a sample k4 c2 c4;
degree of freedom replace.
let k1 ¼ mean(c3)-mean(c4)
35. a. The slender distribution appears to have a lower mean
stack k1 c5 c5
and lower variance.
end
b. With t ¼ 1.88 and a P-value of .097, there is no
significant difference at the .05 level. 71. a. Here is a macro that can be executed 999 times in
37. With t ¼ 2.19 and a two-tailed P-value of .031, there is a MINITAB:
# start with X in C1, Y in C2
significant difference at the .05 level but not the .01 level.
let k3 ¼ N(c1)
39. With t ¼ 3.89 and one-tailed P-value ¼ .006, conclude let k4 ¼ N(c2)
at the 1% level that true average movement is less for the sample k3 c1 c3;
TightRope treatment. Normality is important, but the replace.
normal probability plot does not indicate a problem. sample k4 c2 c4;
replace.
41. a. The 95% confidence interval for the difference of let k2 ¼ medi(c3)-medi(c4)
means is (.000046, .000446), which has only positive stack k2 c6 c6
values. This omits 0 as a possibility, and says that the end
conventional mean is higher.
b. With t ¼ 2.68 and P-value ¼ .010, reject at the .05 73. a. (.593, 1.246)
level the hypothesis of equal means in favor of the b. Here is a macro that can be executed 999 times in
conventional mean being higher. MINITAB:
# start with X in C1, Y in C2
43. With t ¼ 1.87 and a P-value of .049, the difference is let k3 ¼ N(c1)
(barely) significantly greater than 5 at the .05 level. let k4 ¼ N(c2)
sample k3 c1 c3;
45. a. No b. 49.1 c. 49.1
replace.
47. 1 2 3 4 sample k4 c2 c4;
x 10 20 30 40 replace.
y 11 21 31 41 let k5 ¼ stdev(c3)/stdev(c4)
stack k5 c12 c12
end
49. a. Because |z| ¼ |4.84|  1.96, conclude that there is a
difference. Rural residents are more favorable to the 75. a. Because t ¼ 2.62 with a P-value of .018, conclude
increase. that the population means differ. At the 5% level,
b. .9967 blueberries are significantly better.
b. Here is a macro that can be executed repeatedly in
51. (.016, .171) MINITAB:
53. Because z ¼ 4.27 with P-value .000010, conclude that # start with data in C1, group var in C2
the radiation is beneficial. let k3 ¼ N(c1)
Sample k3 c1 c3.
55. a. H0: p3 ¼ p2, Ha: p3 > p2 unstack c3 c4 c5;
b. (X3  X2)/npffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi subs c2.
c. ðX3  X2 Þ= X2 þ X3 let k9 ¼ mean(c4)-mean(c5)
d. With z ¼ 2.67, P ¼ .004, reject H0 at the .01 level. stack k9 c6 c6
end
57. 769
77. a. Because f ¼ 4.46 with a two-tailed P-value of .122,
59. Because z ¼ 3.14 with P ¼ .002, reject H0 at the .01 there is no evidence of unequal population variances.
level. Conclude that lefties are more accident-prone. b. Here is a macro that can be executed repeatedly in
61. a. .0175 b. .1642 c. .0200 d. .0448 MINITAB:
e. .0035 let k1 ¼ n(C1)
Sample K1 c1 c3.
63. No, because f ¼ 1.814 < 6.72 ¼ F.01,9,7. unstack c3 c4 c5;
subs c2.
65. Because f ¼ 1.2219 with P ¼ .505, there is no reason to let k6 ¼ stdev(c4)/stdev(c5)
question the equality of population variances. stack k6 c6 c6
67. 8.10 end

69. a. (.158, .735) 79. a. A MINITAB macro is given in #75(b).

b. Here is a macro that can be executed 999 times in 81. a. (11.85, 6.40)
MINITAB: b. See Exercise 57(a) in Chapter 8.
828 Chapter 11

85. The difference is significant at the .05, .01, and .001 7. a. The Levene test gives f ¼ 1.47, P-value .236, so there
levels. is no reason to doubt equal variances.
b. Because f ¼ 10.48  4.02 ¼ F.01,4,30, there are
89. b. No, given that the 95% CI includes 0, the test at the significant differences among the means.
.05 level does not reject equality of means.
Source DF SS MS F P
91. (299.2, 1517.8)
Plate 4 43993 10998 10.48 0.000
93. (1020.2, 1339.9). Because 0 is not in the CI, we would
length
reject equality of means at the .01 level.
Error 30 31475 1049
95. Because t ¼ 2.61 and the one-tailed P-value is .007, the Total 34 75468
difference is significant at the .05 level using either a
one-tailed or a two-tailed test. 11. w ¼ 36.09 3 1 4 2 5
97. a. Because t ¼ 3.04 and the two-tailed P-value is .008, Splitting the paints into two groups, {3, 1, 4}, {2, 5},
the difference is significant at the .05 level. there are no significant differences within groups but the
b. No, the mean of the concentration distribution paints in the first group differ significantly (they are
depends on both the mean and standard deviation lower) from those in the second group.
of the log concentration distribution.
13. 3 1 4 2 5
99. Because t ¼ 7.50 and the one-tailed P-value is .0000001, 427.5 462.0 469.3 502.8 532.1
the difference is highly significant, assuming normality.
101. The two-sample t is inappropriate for paired data. The 15. w ¼ 5.92; At the 1% level the only significant
paired t gives a mean difference .3, t ¼ 2.67, and the differences are between formation 4 and the first two
two-tailed P-value is .045, so the means are significantly formations.
different at the .05 level. We are concluding tentatively 2 1 3 4
that the label understates the alcohol percentage. 24.69 26.08 29.95 33.84
103. Because paired t ¼ 3.88 and the two-tailed P-value is
.008, the difference is significant at the .05 and .01 17. (.029, .379)
levels, but not at the .001 level. 19. 426
105. Because z ¼ 2.63 and the two-tailed P-value is .009, 21. a. Because f ¼ 22.60  3.26 ¼ F.01,5,78, there are
there is a significant difference at the .01 level, significant differences among the means.
suggesting better survival at the higher temperature. b. (99.1, 35.7), (29.4, 99.1)
107. .902, .826, .029, .00000003 23. The nonsignificant differences are indicated by the
109. Because z ¼ 4.25 and the one-tailed P-value is .00001, underscores.
the difference is highly significant and companies 10 6 3 1
appear to discriminate. 45.5 50.85 55.40 58.28
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
111. With Z ¼ ðX  YÞ=  X=n þ Y=m  , the result is
z ¼ 5.33, two-tailed P-value ¼ .0000001, so one 25. a. Assume normality and equal variances.
should conclude that there is a significant difference in b. Because f ¼ 1.71 < 2.20 ¼ F.10,3,48, P-value ¼ .18,
parameters. there are no significant differences among the means.

113. (i) not bioequivalent (ii) not bioequivalent (iii) 27. a. Because f ¼ 3.75, P-value ¼ .028, there are
bioequivalent significant differences among the means.
b. Because the normal plot looks fairly straight and the
P-value for the Levene test is .68, there is no reason to
doubt the assumptions of normality and constant
Chapter 11 variance.
c. The only significant pairwise difference is between
1. a. Reject H0: m1 ¼ m2 ¼ m3 ¼ m4 ¼ m5 in favor of Ha: brands 1 and 4:
m1, m2, m3, m4, m5 not all the same, because 4 3 2 1
f ¼ 5.57  2.69 ¼ F.05,4,30. 5.82 6.35 7.50 8.27
b. Using Table A.9, .001 < P-value < .01. (The P-value
is .0018)
31. .63
3. Because f ¼ 6.43  2.95 ¼ F.05,3,28, there are pffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
significant differences among the means. 33. arcsinð x=nÞ

5. Because f ¼ 10.85  4.38 ¼ F.01,3,36, there are 35. a. Because f ¼ 1.55 < 3.26 ¼ F.05,4,12, there are no
significant differences among the means. significant differences among the means.
b. Because f ¼ 2.98 < 3.49 ¼ F.05,3,12, there are no
Source DF SS MS F P significant differences among the means.
Formation 3 509.1 169.7 10.85 0.000
37. With f ¼ 5.49  4.56 ¼ F.01,5,15, there are significant
Error 36 563.1 15.6 differences among the stimulus means. Although not all
Total 39 1072.3 differences are significant in the multiple comparisons
analysis, the means for combined stimuli were higher.
 Chapter 11 829

Differences among the subject means are not very 51. a. With f ¼ 1.55 < 2.81 ¼ F.10,2,12, there is no
important here. The normal plot of residuals shows no significant interaction at the .10 level.
reason to doubt normality. However, the plot of residuals b. With f ¼ 376.27  18.64 ¼ F.001,2,12, there is a
against the fitted values shows some dependence of the significant difference between the formulation
variance on the mean. If logged response is used in place means at the .001 level.
of response, the plots look good and the F test result is With f ¼ 19.27  12.97 ¼ F.001,1,12, there is a
similar but stronger. Furthermore, the logged response significant difference among the speed means at the
gives more significant differences in the multiple .001 level.
comparisons analysis. c. Main effects Formulation: (1) 11.19, (2) –11.19
Speed: (60) 1.99, (70) –5.03, (80) 3.04
Means:
53. Here is the ANOVA table
L1 L2 T L1 + L2 L1 + T L2 + T
24.825 27.875 29.1 40.35 41.22 45.05 Source DF SS MS F P

Pen 3 1387.5 462.50 0.68 0.583

39. With f ¼ 2.56 < 2.61 ¼ F.10,3,12, there are no significant surface 2 2888.1 1444.04 2.11 0.164
differences among the angle means. Interaction 6 8100.3 1350.04 1.97 0.149
41. a. With f ¼ 1.04 < 3.28 ¼ F.05,2,34, there are no Error 12 8216.0 684.67
significant differences among the treatment means. Total 23 20591.8

Source DF SS MS F With f ¼ 1.97 < 2.33 ¼ F.10,6,12, there is no significant

interaction at the .10 level.
Treatment 2 28.78 14.39 1.04
With f ¼ .68 < 2.61 ¼ F.10,3,12, there is no significant
Block 17 2977.67 175.16 12.68 difference among the pen means at the .10 level.
Error 34 469.56 13.81 With f ¼ 2.11 < 2.81 ¼ F.10,2,12, there is no significant
Total 53 3476.00 difference among the surface means at the .10 level.

b. The very significant f for blocks, which shows that 57. a. F ¼ MSAB/MSE
blocks differ strongly, implies that blocking was b. A: F ¼ MSA/MSAB B: F ¼ MSB/MSAB
successful. 59. a. Because f ¼ 3.43  2.61 ¼ F.05,4,40, there is a
43. With f ¼ 8.69  6.01 ¼ F.01,2,18, there are significant significant difference among the exam means at the
differences among the three treatment means. .05 level.
The normal plot of residuals shows no reason to doubt b. Because f ¼ 1.65 < 2.61 ¼ F.05,4,40, there is no
normality, and the plot of residuals against the fitted significant difference among the retention means at
values shows no reason to doubt constant variance. the .05 level.
There is no significant difference between treatments B 61. a.
and C, but Treatment A differs (it is lower) significantly
from the others at the .01 level. Source DF SS MS F
Means:
A 29.49 B 31.31 C 31.40 Diet 4 .929 .232 2.15
Error 25 2.690 .108
Total 29 3.619
45. Because f ¼ 8.87  7.01 ¼ F01,4,8, reject the hypothesis
that the variance for B is 0.
Because f ¼ 2.15 < 2.76 ¼ F.05,4,25, there is no
49. a. significant difference among the diet means at the .05
level.
Source df SS MS F b. (.59, .92) Yes, the interval includes 0.
A 2 30763.0 15381.5 3.79 c. .53
B 3 34185.6 11395.2 2.81 63. a. Test H0: m1 ¼ m2 ¼ m3 versus Ha: the three means
Interaction 6 43581.2 7263.5 1.79 are not all the same. With f ¼ 4.80 and F.05,2,16 ¼
Error 24 97436.8 4059.9 3.63 < 4.80 < 6.23 ¼ F.01,2,16, it follows that
Total 35 205966.6 .01 < P-value < .05 (more precisely, P ¼ .023).
Reject H0 in favor of Ha at the 5% level but not at
b. Because 1.79 < 2.04 ¼ F.10,6,24, there is no the 1% level.
significant interaction. b. Only the first and third means differ significantly at
c. Because 3.79  3.40 ¼ F.05,2,24, there is a significant the 5% level.
difference among the A means at the .05 level. 1 2 3
d. Because 2.81 < 3.01 ¼ F..05,6,24, there is no
significant difference among the B means at the .05 25.59 26.92 28.17

level.
e. Using w ¼ 64.93, 65. Because f ¼ 1123  4.07 ¼ F.05,3,8, there are significant
differences among the means at the .05 level.
3 1 2 For Tukey multiple comparisons, w ¼ 7.12:
3960.2 4010.88 4029.10
(continued)
830 Chapter 12

c. No, there is a wide range of y values for a given x; for

PCM OCM RM PIM
example when temperature is 18.2 the ratio ranges
29.92 33.96 125.84 129.30 from .9 to 2.68.
3. Yes. Yes.
The means split into two groups of two. The means within
each group do not differ significantly, but the means in 5. b. Yes
the top group differ strongly from the means in the c. The relationship of y to x is roughly quadratic.
bottom group.
7. a. 5050 psi b. 1.3 psi c. 130 psi d. 130 psi
67. The normal plot is reasonably straight, so there is no
reason to doubt the normality assumption.
3
9. a. .095 m /min b. .475 m /min
3
c. .83 m3/min,
1.305 m3/min d. .4207, .3446 e. .0036
69.
11. a. .01 h, .10 h b. 3.0 h, 2.5 h
Source DF SS MS F c. .3653 d. .4624
A 1 322.667 322.667 980.5
13. a. y ¼ .63 + .652x
B 3 35.623 11.874 36.1
b. 23.46, 2.46
AB 3 8.557 2.852 8.7 c. 392, 5.72
Error 16 5.266 .329 d. .956
Total 23 372.113 e. y ¼ 2.29 + .564x, r2 ¼ .688
15. a. y ¼ 15.2 + .0942x
With f ¼ 8.7  3.24 ¼ F.05,3,16, there is significant b. 1.906
interaction at the .05 level. c. 1.006 , 0.096, 0.034, 0.774
In the presence of significant interaction, main effects are d. .451
not very useful.
17. a. Yes
b. slope, .827; intercept, 1.13
c. 40.22
Chapter 12 d. 5.24
e. .975
1. a. Temperature
19. a. y ¼ 75.2  .209x 54.274
17 0
b. The coefficient of determination is .791, meaning that
17 23 the predictor accounts for 79.1% of the variation in y.
17 445 c. The value of s is 2.56, so typical deviations from the
17 67 regression line will be of this size.
17 Stem: hundreds and tens
18 0000011 Leaf: ones
21. b. y ¼ 2.18 + .660x
c. 7.72
18 2222
d. 7.72
18 445
18 6 ^0 ¼ 1:8b
25. b ^ þ 32; ^0 ¼ 1:8b
b ^
0 0 1 1
18 8
29. a. Subtracting x from each xi shifts the plot x units to
The distribution is fairly symmetric and bell-shaped with the left. The slope is left unchanged, but the new
a center around 180. y intercept is y, the height of the old line at x ¼ x.
^ ¼ Y ¼ b
b. b ^ þb ^ ¼ b
^ x and b ^
Ratio 0 0 1 1 1

0 889 31. a. .00189

1 0000
b. .7101
c. No, because here Sðxi  xÞ2 is 24,750, smaller than the
1 3
value 70,000 in part (a), so Vðb ^ Þ ¼ s2 =Sðxi  xÞ2 is
1
1 4444 higher here.
1 66
1 8889 Stem: ones; 33. a. (.51, 1.40)
2 11 Leaf: tenths b. To test H0: b1 ¼ 1 vs. Ha: b1 < 1, we compute
2
t ¼ .2258 > 1.383 ¼ t.10,9, so there is no
reason to reject the null hypothesis, even at the 10%
2 5
level. There is no conflict between the data and the
2 6 assertion that the slope is at least 1.
2
^ ¼ 1:536, and a 95% CI is (.632, 2.440)
35. a. b
3 00 1
b. Yes, for the test of H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0, we find
The distribution is concentrated between 1 and 2, with t ¼ 3.62, with P-value .0025. At the .01 level
some positive skewness. conclude that there is a useful linear relationship.
b. No, x does not determine y: for a given x there may be c. Because 5 is beyond the range of the data, predicting
more than one y. at a dose of 5 might involve too much extrapolation.

^ ¼ 1:683, and a 95% CI is (.531, 2.835).
d. b
1
Eliminating the point causes only moderate change,
so the point is not extremely influential.
37. a. Yes, for the test of H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0, we find
t ¼ 6.73, with P-value .00002. At the .01 level
conclude that there is a useful linear relationship.
b. (2.77, –1.42)
43. No, z ¼ .73 and the P-value is .46, so there is no evidence
for a significant impact of age on kyphosis.
45. a. sY^ increases as the distance of x from x increases
b. (2.26, 3.19)
c. (1.34, 4.11)
d. At least 90%
47. a. The regression equation is y ¼ 1:58 þ 2:59x and
R2 ¼ .838.
b. A 95% confidence interval for the slope is ( 2.16,
3.01). In repetitions of the whole process of data
collection and calculation of the interval, roughly
95% of the intervals will contain the true slope.
c. When tannin ¼ .6 the estimated mean astringency is
0.0335 and the 95% confidence interval is (0.125,
0.058)
d. When tannin ¼ .6 the predicted astringency is
0.0335 and the 95% prediction interval is
(0.5582, 0.4912)
e. Our null hypothesis is that true average astringency
is 0 when tannin is .7, and the alternative is that the
true average is positive. The t for this test is 4.61, with
P-value ¼ .000035, so yes there is compelling
evidence.
49. (431.2, 628.6)
51. a. Yes, for the test of H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0,
we find t ¼ 10.62, with P-value .000014. At the
.001 level conclude that there is a useful linear
relationship.
b. (8.24, 12.96) With 95% confidence, when the flow
rate is increased by 1 SCCM, the associated expected
change in etch rate is in the interval.
c. (36.10, 40.41) This is fairly precise.
d. (31.86, 44.65) This is much less precise than the
interval in (c)
e. Because 2.5 is closer to the mean, the intervals will be
narrower.
f. Because 6 is outside the range of the data, it is
unknown whether the regression will apply there.
g. Use a 99% CI at each value: (23.88, 31.43), (29.93,
35.98), (35.07, 41.45)
53. a. Yes
b. Yes, for the test of H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0, we find
t ¼ 4.39, with P-value < .001. At the .001 level
conclude that there is a useful linear relationship.
c. (403.6, 468.2)
57. a. r ¼ .923, so x and y are strongly correlated.
b. unaffected
c. unaffected
d. The normal plots seem consistent with normality, but
the scatter plot shows a slight curvature.
e. For the test of H0: r ¼ 0 vs. Ha: r 6¼ 0, we find
t ¼ 7.59, with P-value .00002. At the .001 level
conclude that there is a useful linear relationship.
Chapter 12 831
59. a. For the test of H0: r ¼ 0 vs. Ha: r > 0, we find
r ¼ .760, t ¼ 4.05, with P-value < .001. At the .001
level conclude that there is a positive correlation.
b. Because r2 ¼ .578 we say that the regression accounts
for 57.8 % of the variation in endurance. This also
applies to prediction of lactate level from endurance.
61. For the test of H0: r ¼ 0 vs. Ha: r 6¼ 0, we find r ¼ .773,
t ¼ 2.44, with P-value .072. At the .05 level conclude
that there is not a significant correlation. With such a
small sample size, a high r is needed for significance.
63. a. Reject the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative.
b. No, with a large sample size a small r can be
significant.
c. Because t ¼ 2.200  1.96 ¼ t.025,9998 the correlation
is statistically (but not necessarily practically)
significant at the .05 level.
67. a. .184, –.238, –.426
b. The mean that is subtracted is not the mean x1;n1 of
x1, x2,, . . ., xn–1, or the mean x2;n of x2, x3,, . . ., xn.
Also, the denominator of rffi1 is not
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn1 ffiqP
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n
1 ðxi  x1;n1 Þ 2
2 ðxi  x 2;n Þ . However, if
2
n is large then r1 is approximately the same as the
correlation. A similar relationship applies to r2.
c. No
d. After performing one test at the .05 level, doing more
tests raises the probability of at least one type I error to
more than .05.
69. The plot shows no reasons for concern about using the
simple linear regression model.
71. a. The simple linear regression model may not be a
perfect fit because the plot shows some curvature.
b. The plot of standardized residuals is very similar to
the residual plot. The normal probability plot gives
no reason to doubt normality.
73. a. For the test of H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0, we find
t ¼ 10.97, with P-value .0004. At the .001 level
conclude that there is a useful linear relationship.
b. The residual plot shows curvature, so the linear
relationship of part (a) is questionable.
c. There are no extreme standardized residuals , and the
plot of standardized residuals is similar to the plot of
ordinary residuals.
75. The first data set seems appropriate for a straight-line
model. The second data set shows a quadratic
relationship, so the straight-line relationship is
inappropriate. The third data set is linear except for an
outlier, and removal of the outlier will allow a line to be
fit. The fourth data set has only two values of x, so there is
no way to tell if the relationship is linear.
77. a. To test for lack of fit, we find f ¼ 3.30, with 3
numerator df and 10 denominator df, so the P-value
is .079. At the .05 level we cannot conclude that the
relationship is poor.
b. The scatter plot shows that the relationship is not
linear, in spite of (a). In this case, the plot is more
sensitive than the test.
79. a. 77.3
b. 40.4
c. The coefficient b3 is the difference in sales caused by
the window, all other things being equal.
832 Chapter 12

81. a. .686, no f. Source DF SS MS F

b. We find f ¼ 28.6  2.62 ¼ F.001,16,186, so there is a
significant relationship at the .001 level. Regression 2 5 2.5 0.625
c. With all other predictors held constant, the estimated Error 1 4 4.0
difference in y between class A and not is .364. In Total 3 9
terms of $/ft2, the effect is multiplicative. Class A
buildings are estimated to be worth 44% more With f ¼ .625 < 199.5 ¼ F.05,2,1, there is no
dollars per square foot, with all other predictors held significant relationship at the .05 level.
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
^ ¼ y; s ¼ P ðy  yÞ2 =ðn  1Þ;
constant.
d. The difference in (c) is highly significant because the 93. b 0 pffiffiffi
two-tailed P-value is .00000013. c00 ¼ 1=n; y  t:025;n1 s= n
Xmþn
83. a. 48.31, 3.69 95. a. b^ ¼ 1 yi ¼y;
0
mþn 1
b. No, because the interaction term will change. X X
c. Yes, f ¼ 18.92, P-value < .0001. ^ ¼1
b
m
y 
1 mþn
y ¼ y1  y2
1
m 1 i n mþ1 i
d. Yes, t ¼ 3.496, P-value ¼ .003  .01 b. y^i ¼ y1 ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m; y^i ¼ y2 ; i ¼ m þ 1; . . . ; m þ n
e. (21.6, 41.6) P Pmþn
SSE ¼ m 1 ðyi  y 1 Þ2 þ mþ1 ðyi  y2 Þ2 s¼
f. There appear to be no problems with normality or pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
curvature, but the variance may depend on x1 SSE=ðm þ n  2Þ c11 ¼ 4/(m + n)
d. b ^ ¼ 128:17; b ^ ¼ 14:33 y^i ¼ 121; i ¼ 1; . . . ; 3;
85. a. No 0 1
b. With f ¼ 5.03  3.69 ¼ F.05,5,8, there is a significant y^i ¼ 135:33; i ¼ 4; . . . ; 6
relationship at the .05 level. SSE ¼ 116.67 s ¼ 5.4006 c11 ¼ 2/3
c. Yes, the individual hypotheses deal with the issue of 95% CI for b1 (2.09, 26.58)
whether an individual predictor can be deleted, not the 97. Residual ¼ Dep Var – Predicted Value
effectiveness of the whole model. Std Error Residual ¼ [MSE – (Std Error Predict)2].5
d. 6.2, 3.3, (16.7, 31.9) Student Residual ¼ Residual/Std Error Residual
e. With f ¼ 3.44 < 4.07 ¼ F.05,3,8, there is no reason to
reject the null hypothesis, so the quadratic terms can 101. a. Hij ¼ 1=n þ ðxi  xÞðxj  xÞ=Sðxk  xÞ2
be deleted. VðY^i Þ ¼ s2 ½1=n þ ðxi  xÞ2 =Sðxk  xÞ2 
b. VðYi  Y^i Þ ¼ s2 ½1  1=n  ðxi  xÞ2 =Sðxk  xÞ2 
87. a. The quadratic terms are important in providing a good
c. The variance of a predicted value is greater for an x
fit to the data.
that is farther from x
b. A 95% PI is (.560, .771).
d. The variance of a residual is lower for an x that is
89. a. rRI ¼ .843 (.000), rRA ¼ .621 (.001), rIA ¼ .843 farther from x
(.000) Here the P-values are given in parentheses to e. It is intuitive that the variance of prediction should be
three decimals. higher with increasing distance. However, points that
b. Rating ¼ 2.24 + 0.0419 IBU – 0.166 ABV. Because are farther away tend to draw the line toward them,
the two predictors are highly correlated, one is so the residual naturally has lower variance.
redundant.
103. a. With f ¼ 12.04  9.55 ¼ F.01,2,7, there is a
c. Linearity is an issue.
significant relationship at the .01 level.
e. The regression is quite effective, with R2 ¼ .872. The
To test H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0, |t| ¼
ABV coefficient is not significant, so ABV is not
2.96  t.025,7 ¼ 2.36, so reject H0 at the .05 level.
needed. The highly significant positive coefficient
The foot term is needed.
for IBU and negative coefficient for its square show
To test H0: b2 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b2 6¼ 0, |t| ¼
that Rating increases with IBU, but the rate of increase
0.02 < t.025,7 ¼ 2.36, so do not reject H0 at the .05
is lower at higher IBU.
level. The height term is not needed.
2 3 2 3 b. The highest leverage is .88 for the fifth point. The
1 1 1 1 height for this student is given as 54 inches, too low
6 1 1 1 7 617
91. a. X ¼ 641
7 y ¼ 6 7, to be correct for this group of students. Also this
1 1 5 405
value differs by 800 from the wingspan, an extreme
1 1 1 4 difference.
2 3 2 3 2 3
4 0 0 6 1:5 c. Point 1 has leverage .55, and this student has height
4 0 4 0 5^ b ¼ 425 ^ ¼ 4 :5 5
b. b 75, foot length 13, both quite high.
0 0 4 4 1 Point 2 has leverage .31, and this student has height
2 3 2 3 66 and foot length 8.5, at the low end.
0 1 Point 7 has leverage .31 and this student has both
627 6 1 7
c. y^ ¼ 6 7 6 7
4 1 5 y  y^ ¼ 4 1 5 SSE ¼ 4, MSE ¼ 4
height and foot length at the high end.
d. Point 2 has the most extreme residual. This student
3 1 has a height of 6600 and a wingspan of 5600 differing
d. (12.2, 13.2) by 1000 , so the extremely low wingspan is probably
e. For the test of H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0, we wrong.
find |t| ¼ .5 < t.025,1 ¼ 12.7, so do not reject H0 at e. For this data set it would make sense to eliminate
the .05 level. The x1 term does not play a significant points 2 and 5 because they seem to be wrong.
role. However, outliers are not always mistakes and one
needs to be careful about eliminating them.

105. a. .507% b. .7122
c. To test H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0, we have t ¼ 3.93,
with P-value .0013. At the .01 level conclude that
there is a useful linear relationship.
d. (1.056, 1.275)
e. y^ ¼ 1:014 y  y^ ¼ :214
107. –36.18, (64.43, –7.94)
109. No, if the relationship of y to x is linear, then the
relationship of y2 to x is quadratic.
111. a. Yes
b. y^ ¼ 98:293 y  y^ ¼ :117
c. s ¼ .155
d. .794
e. 95% CI for b1: (.0613, .0901)
f. The new observation is an outlier, and has a major
impact:
The equation of the line changes from
y ¼ 97.50 + .0757 x to y ¼ 97.28 + .1603 x
s changes from .155 to .291
r2 changes from .794 to .616
113. a. The paired t procedure gives t ¼ 3.54 with a two-
tailed P-value of .002, so at the .01 level we reject the
hypothesis of equal means.
b. The regression line is y ¼ 4.79 + .743x, and the test
of H0: b1 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: b1 6¼ 0, gives t ¼ 7.41 with a
P-value of <.000001, so there is a significant
relationship. However, prediction is not perfect,
with r2 ¼ .753, so one variable accounts for only
75% of the variability in the other.
117. a. linear
b. After fitting a line to the data, the residuals show a
lot of curvature.
c. Yes. The residuals from the logged model show some
departure from linearity, but the fit is good in terms
of R2 ¼ .988. We find ^ a ¼ 411:98, b^ ¼ :03333:
d. (58.15, 104.18)
119. a. The plot suggests a quadratic model.
b. With f ¼ 25.08 and a P-value of < .0001, there is a
significant relationship at the .0001 level
c. CI: (3282.3, 3581.3), PI: (2966.6, 3897.0). Of course,
the PI is wider, as in simple linear regression,
because it needs to include the variability of a new
observation in addition to the variability of the mean.
d. CI: (3257.6, 3565.6), PI: (2945.0, 3878.2). These are
slightly wider than the intervals in (c),which is
appropriate, given that 25 is slightly closer to the
mean and the vertex.
e. With t ¼ 6.73 and a two-tailed P-value of
< .0001, the quadratic term is significant at the
.0001 level, so this term is definitely needed.
121. a. With f ¼ 2.4 < 5.86 ¼ F.05,15,4, there is no
significant relationship at the .05 level
b. No, especially when k is large compared to n
c. .9565
Chapter 13
1. a. reject H0 b. do not reject H0 c. do not reject
H0 d. do not reject H0
Chapter 13 833
3. Do not reject H0 because w2 ¼ 1:57 < 7:815 ¼ w2:05;3
5. Because w2 ¼ 6.61 with P-value .68, do not reject H0.
7. Because w2 ¼ 4.03 with P-value > .10, do not reject H0.
9. a. [0, .223), [.223, .510), [.510, .916), [.916, 1.609).
[1.609, 1)
b. Because w2 ¼ 1.25 with P-value > .10, do not reject
H0.
11. a. (1, .967), [.967, .431), [.431, 0), [0, .431),
[.431, .967), [.967, 1)
b. (1,.49806), [.49806, .49914), [.49914, .50), [.50,
.50086), [.50086, .50194), [.50194, 1)
c. Because w2 ¼ 5.53 with P-value > .10, do not reject
H0.
13. Using p^ ¼ :0843, w2 ¼ 280.3 with P-value < .001, so
reject the independence model.
15. The likelihood is proportional to y233(1 – y)367 from
which ^ y ¼ :3883. This gives estimated probabilities
.1400, .3555, .3385, .1433, .0227 and expected counts
21.00, 53.32, 50.78, 21.49, 3.41. Because 3.41 < 5,
combine the last two categories, giving w2 ¼ 1.62 with
P-value > .10. Do not reject the binomial model.
17. ^
l ¼ 3:167 which gives w2 ¼ 103.9 with P-value < .001,
so reject the assumption of a Poisson model.
y1 ¼ :4275; ^
19. ^ y2 ¼ :2750 which gives w2 ¼ 29.3 with P-
value < .001, so reject the model.
21. Yes, the test gives no reason to reject the null hypothesis
of a normal distribution.
23. The P-values are both .243.
25. Let pi1 ¼ the probability that a fruit given treatment i
matures and pi2 ¼ the probability that a fruit given
treatment i aborts, so Ho: pi1 ¼ pi2 for i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
We find w2 ¼ 24.82 with P-value < .001, so reject the
null hypothesis and conclude that maturation is affected
by leaf removal.
27. If pij denotes the probability of a type j response when
treatment i is applied, then H0: p1j ¼ p2j ¼ p3j ¼ p4j for
j ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4. With w2 ¼ 27:66  23:587 ¼ w2:005;9 ,
reject H0 at the .005 level. The treatment does affect the
response.
29. With w2 ¼ 64:65  13:277 ¼ w2:01;4 , reject H0 at the .001
level. Political views are related to marijuana usage. In
particular, liberals are more likely to be users.
31. Compute the expected counts by
e^ijk ¼ n^
pijk ¼ n^
n
pi p^j p^k ¼ n nni nj nnk . For the
w2 statistic df ¼ 20.
33. a. With w2 ¼ :681 < 4:605 ¼ w2:10;2 , do not reject
independence at the .10 level.
b. With w2 ¼ 6:81  4:605 ¼ w2:10;2 , reject independence
at the .10 level.
c. 677
35. a. With w2 ¼ 6.45 and P-value .040, reject independence
at the .05 level.
b. With z ¼ 2.29 and P-value .022, reject
independence at the .05 level.
834 Chapter 14

c. Because the logistic regression takes into account the
order in the professorial ranks, it should be more
sensitive, so it should give a lower P-value.
d. There are few female professors but many assistant
professors, and the assistant professors will be the
professors of the future.
37. With w2 ¼ 13:005  9:210 ¼ w2:01;2 , reject the null
hypothesis of no effect at the .01 level. Oil does make a
difference (more parasites).
5. We form the difference and perform a two-tailed test of
H0: m ¼ 0 at level .05. This gives s+ ¼ 72 and because
it does not satisfy 14 < s+ < 64, we reject H0 at the
.05 level.
7. Because s+ ¼ 162.5 with P-value .044, reject H0: m ¼ 75
in favor of Ha: m > 75 at the .05 level.
9. With w ¼ 38, reject H0 at the .05 level because the
rejection region is {w  36}.

39. a. H0: The population proportion of Late Game 11. Test H0: m1 – m2 ¼ 1 vs. Ha: m1 – m2 > 1. After
Leader Wins is the same for all four sports; Ha: The subtracting 1 from the original process measurements,
proportion of Late Game Leader Wins is not the same we get w ¼ 65. Do not reject H0 because w < 84.
for all four sports. With w2 ¼ 10:518  7:815 ¼ w2:05;3 , 13. b. Test H0: m1 – m2 ¼ 0 vs. Ha: m1 – m2 < 0. With a
reject the null hypothesis at level .05. Sports differ in P-value of .002 we reject H0 at the .01 level.
terms of coming from behind late in the game.
b. Yes (baseball) 15. With w ¼ 135, z ¼ 2.223, and the approximate P-value
is .026, so we would not reject the null hypothesis at the
41. With w ¼ 197:6  16:812 ¼
2
w2:01;6 ,
reject the null .01 level.
hypothesis at the .01 level. The aged are more likely to
die in a chronic-care facility. 17. (11.15, 23.80)
43. With w ¼ :763 < 7:779 ¼
2
w2:10;4 ,
do not reject the 19. (.585, .025)
hypothesis of independence at the .10 level. There is no
evidence that age influences the need for item pricing. 21. (16, 87)

45. a. No, w ¼ 9:02  7:815 ¼ w2:05;3 .

2 29. a. (.4736, .6669)
b. With w2 ¼ :157 < 6:251 ¼ w2:10;3 , there is no reason to b. (.4736, .6669)
say the model does not fit. 33. For a two-tailed test at level .05, we find that s+ ¼ 24 and
47. a. H0: p0 ¼ p1 ¼ . . . ¼ p9 ¼ .10 vs. Ha: at least one because 4 < s+ < 32, we do not reject the hypothesis of
pi 6¼ .10, with df ¼ 9. equal means.
b. H0: pij ¼ .01 for i and j ¼ 0,1,2,. . .,9 vs. Ha: at least 35. a. a ¼ .0207; Bin(20, .5)
one pij 6¼ .01, with df ¼ 99. b. c ¼ 14; because y ¼ 12, do not reject H0
c. No, there must be more observations than cells to do a
valid chi-square test. 37. With K ¼ 20:12  13:277 ¼ w2:01;4 , reject the null hypo-
d. The results give no reason to reject randomness. thesis of equal means at the 1% level. Axial strength does
seem to (as an increasing function) depend on plate
length.
Chapter 14 39. Because fr ¼ 6:45 < 7:815 ¼ w2:05;3 , do not reject the null
hypothesis of equal emotion means at the 5% level.
1. For a two-tailed test of H0: m ¼ 100 at level .05, we
find that s+ ¼ 27 and because 14 < s+ < 64, we do not 41. Because w0 ¼ 26 < 27, do not reject the null hypothesis
reject H0. at the 5% level.
3. For a two-tailed test of H0: m ¼ 7.39 at level .05, we find
that s+ ¼ 18 and because s+ does not satisfy
21 < s+ < 84, we reject H0.
Index
A Ansari–Bradley test, 786
Additive model
for ANOVA, 584–6, 589
for linear regression analysis, 624
for multiple regression
analysis, 682
Alternative hypothesis, 426
Analysis of covariance, 699
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
additive model for, 584–586,
597
data transformation for, 579
definition of, 552
expected value in, 556, 573,
589, 597
fixed vs. random effects, 579
Friedman test, 785
fundamental identity of, 560,
564, 587, 599, 600, 635
interaction model for, 597–606
Kruskal–Wallis test, 784
Levene test, 562–563
linear regression and, 636, 639,
664, 708, 717
mean in, 553, 555, 557
mixed effects model for,
593, 603
multiple comparisons in,
564–571, 578, 589–590, 603
noncentrality parameter for,
574, 582
notation for, 555, 559, 598
power curves for, 574–575
randomized block experiments
and, 590–593
regression identity of, 635–636
sample sizes in, 574–576
single-factor, 553–582
two-factor, 582–608
type I error in, 558–559
type II error in, 574
Association, causation and, 251, 671
Asymptotic normal distribution, 298,
371, 375, 377, 671
Asymptotic relative efficiency,
764, 769
Autocorrelation coefficient, 674
Average
definition of, 25
deviation, 33
pairwise, 379, 772–773, 775
rank, 785
weighted (see Weighted average)
B Binomial random variable
Bar graph, 9, 19
Bartlett’s test, 562
Bayesian approach to inference, 758,
776–782
Bayes’ Theorem, 79–81, 777, 780
Bernoulli distribution, 104, 122, 134,
302 373, 375, 377, 777
Bernoulli random variable
binomial random variable and,
134, 302
Cramér–Rao inequality for, 375
definition of, 98
expected value, 113
Fisher information on, 372–373,
377
Laplace’s rule of succession
and, 782
mean of, 113
mle for, 377
moment generating function for,
122, 123, 127
pmf of, 103
score function for, 372
in Wilcoxon’s signed-rank
statistic, 314
Beta distribution, 206–208, 777
Beta functions, incomplete, 207
Bias-corrected and accelerated
interval, 415, 417, 538
Bimodal histogram, 18, 19
Binomial distribution
basics of, 128–135
Bayesian approach to, 777–780
multinomial distribution and, 240
normal distribution and,
189–190, 302
Poisson distribution and,
147–149
Binomial experiment, 130–131, 134,
147, 240, 302, 724
Bernoulli random variables and,
134, 302
cdf for, 132
definition of, 130
distribution of, 132
expected value of, 134, 135
in hypergeometric experiment,
141
in hypothesis testing, 428–431,
450–454
mean of, 134–135
moment generating function for,
135
multinomial distribution of, 240
in negative binomial experiment,
142
normal approximation of,
189–190, 302
pmf for, 132
and Poisson distribution,
147–149
standard deviation of, 134
unbiased estimation, 335, 337
variance of, 134, 135
Binomial theorem, 135, 142–144
Bioequivalence tests, 551
835
836 Index
Birth process, pure, 378
Bivariate data, 3, 617, 623, 632,
691, 721
Bivariate normal distribution,
258–260, 310, 318, 477,
667–671
Bonferroni confidence intervals,
424, 657–659, 689
Bootstrap procedure
for confidence intervals,
411–418, 532–534
for paired data, 538–540
for point estimates, 345–346
Bound on the error of estimation, 388
Box–Muller transformation, 271
Boxplot, 37–41
comparative, 40–41
Branching process, 281
C Chi-squared random variable
Categorical data
classification of, 30
graphs for, 19
in multiple regression analysis,
696–699
Pareto diagram, 24
sample proportion in, 30
Cauchy distribution
mean of, 322, 342
median of, 342
minimal sufficiency for, 367
reciprocals and, 231
standard normal distribution
and, 271
uniform distribution and, 226
variance of sample mean
for, 349
Causation, association and, 251, 671
cdf. See Cumulative distribution
function
Cell counts/frequencies, 725–727,
729–730, 732–740, 744–750
Cell probabilities, 729, 732, 737, 739
Censored experiments, 32, 343–344
Census, 2
Central Limit Theorem
basics of, 298–303
Law of Large Numbers and, 305
proof of, 329–330
sample proportion distribution
and, 190
Wilcoxon rank-sum test and, 770
Wilcoxon signed-rank test
and, 765
Central t distribution, 320–323, 423
Chebyshev’s inequality, 120, 138,
156, 194, 303, 345
Chi-squared distribution
censored experiment and, 421
in confidence intervals,
389–390, 410
critical values for, 317, 389,
409–410, 477, 725, 727,
737–738
definition of, 200
degrees of freedom for, 200, 315
exponential distribution
and, 317
F distribution and, 323–325
gamma distribution and, 200, 315
in goodness-of-fit tests, 720–751
Rayleigh distribution and, 226
standard normal distribution
and, 224, 316–317, 325
of sum of squares, 317, 557
t distribution and, 320, 325
in transformation, 224
Weibull distribution and, 231
in ANOVA, 557
cdf for, 316
expected value of, 315
in hypothesis testing, 482
in likelihood ratio tests, 477, 480
mean of, 315
moment generating function
of, 315
pdf of, 200, 315
standard normal random
variables and, 224,
316–317, 325
in Tukey’s procedure, 565
variance of, 315
Chi-squared test
degrees of freedom in, 726, 734,
736, 745, 748
for goodness of fit, 724-730,
for homogeneity, 745–747
for independence, 747–749
P-value for, 727–728
for specified distribution,
729–730
z test and, 752
Class intervals, 15–17, 278, 293,
738–739
Coefficient of determination
definition of, 632–634, 686
F ratio and, 687
in multiple regression, 686
sample correlation coefficient
and, 664
Coefficient of skewness, 121,
128, 178
Coefficient of variation, 45, 229, 357
Cohort, 281
Combination, 70–72
Comparative boxplot, 40–41, 502,
503, 554
Complement of an event, 53, 60
Compound event, 52, 62
Concentration parameter, 779
Conceptual population, 6, 113,
287, 487
Conditional density, 253
Conditional distribution, 253–263,
361, 369, 667, 735, 758, 777
Conditional mean, 255–262
Conditional probability, 74–81,
84–85, 200, 253–255, 362,
365–366
Conditional probability density
function, 253
Conditional probability mass
function, 253, 255
Conditional variance, 255–262, 367
Confidence bound, 398–399, 403,
440, 494, 500, 513
Confidence interval
adjustment of, 400
in ANOVA, 565, 570–571, 578,
589, 591, 603
based on t distribution, 401–404,
499–501, 505, 513–515,
570–571, 643–646
Bonferroni, 424, 657-659
bootstrap procedure for,
411–418, 538, 540, 532–534
for a contrast, 571
for a correlation coefficient, 671
vs. credibility interval, 777–781
definition of, 382
derivation of, 389
for difference of means, 493–495,
500–501, 505, 513–515,
532–534, 539–540, 565–569,
578, 589, 591, 603
for difference of proportions, 524
distribution-free, 771–776
for exponential distribution
parameter, 389
in linear regression, 643–646,
656–658
for mean, 383–387, 392,
403–404, 411–415
for median, 415–417
in multiple regression, 689, 712
one-sided, 398, 500, 513
for paired data, 513–515, 539
for ratio of variances, 530–531, 537
sample size and, 388
Scheffé method for, 610
sign, 784
for slope coefficient, 643
for standard deviation, 409–410
for variance, 409–410
width of, 385, 387–388, 394, 397,
404, 417, 495

Wilcoxon rank-sum, 774–776
Wilcoxon signed-rank, 772-774
Confidence level
definition of, 382, 385–388
simultaneous, 565–570, 578,
589, 591, 658
in Tukey’s procedure, 565–570,
578, 589, 591
Confidence set, 772
Consistency, 304, 357, 375–377
Consistent estimator, 304, 357,
375–377
Contingency tables, two-way,
744–751
Continuity correction, 189–190
Continuous random variable(s)
conditional pdf for, 254, 789
cumulative distribution function
of, 163–168
definition of, 99, 159
vs. discrete random variable, 162
expected value of, 171–172
joint pdf of (see Joint probability
density functions)
marginal pdf of, 236–238
mean of, 171, 172
moment generating of, 175–177
pdf of (see Probability density
function)
percentiles of, 166–168
standard deviation of, 173–175
transformation of, 220–225,
265–270
variance of, 173–175
Contrast of means, 570–571
Convenience samples, 7
Convergence
in distribution, 153, 329
in mean square, 303
in probability, 304
Convex function, 231
Correction factor, 141, 560, 568,
577, 582
Correction for the mean, 560
Correlation coefficient
autocorrelation coefficient and, 674
in bivariate normal distribution,
258–260, 310, 667
confidence interval for, 671
covariance and, 249
Cramér–Rao inequality and,
374–375
definition of, 249, 663
estimator for, 666
Fisher transformation, 669
for independent random
variables, 250
in linear regression, 664, 667, 669
measurement error and, 328
paired data and, 515–516
sample (see Sample correlation
coefficient)
Covariance
correlation coefficient and, 249
Cramér–Rao inequality and,
374–375
definition of, 247
of independent random
variables, 250–251
of linear functions, 249
matrix format for, 711
Covariate, 699
Cramér–Rao inequality, 374–375
Credibility interval, 777–782
Critical values
chi-squared, 317
F, 324
standard normal (z), 184
studentized range, 565
t, 322, 409
tolerance, 406
Cumulative distribution function
for a continuous random
variable, 163–168
for a discrete random variable,
104–108
inverse function of, 223–224
joint, 282
of order statistics, 272–273
pdf and, 163
percentiles and, 167
pmf and, 105–108
transformation and, 220–225
Cumulative frequency, 24
Cumulative relative frequency, 24
D function)
Data
bivariate, 3, 617, 632, 691
categorical (see Categorical data)
censoring of, 32, 343–344
characteristics of, 3
collection of, 7–8
definition of, 2
multivariate, 3, 220
qualitative, 19
univariate, 3
Deductive reasoning, 6
Degrees of freedom (df)
in ANOVA, 557–559,
587, 599
for chi-squared distribution,
200, 315–320
in chi-squared tests, 726, 734,
737, 746
for F distribution, 323
in regression, 631, 685
sample variance and, 35
Index 837
for Studentized range
distribution, 565
for t distribution, 320, 390,
500, 504
type II error and, 574
Delta method, 174
De Morgan’s laws, 56
Density
conditional, 253–257
curve, 160
function (pdf), 160
joint, 235
marginal, 236
scale, 17
Dependence, 84–88, 238–242, 250,
257, 747
Dependent events, 84-88
Dependent variable, 614
Descriptive statistics, 1–41
Deviation
definition of, 33
minimize absolute deviations
principle, 33, 679
Dichotomous trials, 128
Difference statistic, 347
Discrete random variable(s)
conditional pmf for, 253
cumulative distribution function
of, 104–108
definition of, 99
expected value of, 112
joint pmf of (see Joint probability
mass function)
marginal pmf of, 234
mean of, 112
moment generating of, 122
pmf of (see Probability mass
standard deviation of, 117
transformation of, 225
variance of, 117
Disjoint events, 54
Dotplots, 12
Dummy variable, 696
Dunnett’s method, 571
E
Efficiency, asymptotic relative,
764, 769
Empirical rule, 187
Erlang distribution, 202, 229
Error(s)
estimated standard, 344, 646, 713
estimation, 334
family vs. individual, 570
measurement, 179, 211, 337, 477
prediction, 405, 658, 683
rounding, 36
standard, 344, 713
838 Index

Error(s) (cont.) observational studies in, 488 Fisher–Irwin test, 525

type I, 429
type II, 429
Estimated regression function,
676, 685
Estimated regression line, 625
Estimated standard error, 344,
646, 713
Estimator, 332
Event(s)
complement of, 53
compound, 52, 62
definition of, 52
dependent, 84–88
disjoint, 54
exhaustive, 79
independent, 84–88
indicator function for, 364
intersection of, 53
mutually exclusive, 54
mutually independent, 87
simple, 52
union of, 53
Venn diagrams for, 55
Expected mean squares
in ANOVA, 573, 577, 600, 614
F test and, 589, 593, 600, 604
in mixed effects model, 593, 604
in random effects model, 580,
593–594
in regression, 681
Expected value
conditional, 255
of a continuous random
variable, 171
covariance and, 247
of a discrete random variable, 112
of a function, 115, 245–246
heavy-tailed distribution and,
114–115, 120
of jointly distributed random
variables, 245
Law of Large Numbers and, 303
of a linear combination, 306
of mean squares (see Expected
mean squares)
moment generating function
and, 122, 175
moments and, 121
in order statistics, 272–273, 277
of sample mean, 277, 296
of sample standard deviation,
340, 379
of sample total, 296
of sample variance, 339
Experiment
binomial, 128, 240, 724
definition of, 52
double-blind, 523
paired data, 515
paired vs. independent samples,
520–521
randomized block, 590–593
randomized controlled, 489
repeated measures designs in, 591
with replacement, 69, 141, 287
retrospective, 488
simulation, 291–294
Explanatory variable, 614
Exponential distribution
censored experiments and, 343
chi-squared distribution
and, 317
confidence interval for
parameter, 389
double, 477
estimators for parameter, 343, 351
goodness-of-fit test for, 739
mixed, 229
in pure birth process, 378
shifted, 360, 479
skew in, 277
standard gamma distribution
and, 198
Weibull distribution and, 203
Exponential random variable(s)
Box–Muller transformation
and, 271
cdf of, 199
expected value of, 198
independence of, 242
mean of, 198
in order statistics, 272, 275
pdf of, 198
transformation of, 220, 267, 270
variance of, 198
Exponential regression model, 721
Exponential smoothing, 48
Extreme outliers, 39–41
Extreme value distribution, 217
F standard, 195
Factorial notation, 69
Factorization theorem, 363
Factors, 552
Failure rate function, 230
Family of probability distributions,
104, 213
F distribution
chi-squared distribution and, 323
definition of, 323
expected value of, 325
for model utility test, 649, 687, 709
noncentral, 574–575
pdf of, 324
Finite population correction factor, 141
Fisher information, 371
Fisher transformation, 669
Fitted values, 588, 629, 674
Fixed effects model, 579, 592, 597
Fourth spread, 37, 41, 285
Frequency, 13
Frequency distribution, 13
Friedman’s test, 785
F test
in ANOVA, 558, 580, 587,
593, 600
Bartlett’s test and, 562
coefficient of determination
and, 687
critical values for, 324, 528, 558
distribution and, 323, 527, 558
for equality of variances, 527, 537
expected mean squares and, 573,
589, 593, 600, 604
Levene test and, 562
power curves and, 574–575
P-value for, 529, 537, 559
in regression, 687, 709
sample sizes for, 574
single-factor, 558, 580
vs. t test, 576
two-factor, 587, 593, 600
type II error in, 574
Full quadratic model, 695
G
Galton–Watson branching process,
281
Gamma distribution
chi-squared distribution and, 200
definition of, 195
density function for, 195
Erlang distribution and, 201
estimators of parameters, 351,
355, 358
exponential distribution and,
198–200
Poisson distribution and, 783
Weibull distribution and, 203
Gamma function
incomplete, 196, 217
properties of, 195
Gamma random variables, 195
Geometric distribution, 143, 225
Geometric random variables, 143
Goodness-of-fit test
for composite hypotheses,
732, 741
definition of, 723
for homogeneity, 745–747
for independence, 747–749
simple, 724–730
Grand mean, 555, 584

H Intersection of events
Half-normal plot, 220
Histogram
bimodal, 18
class intervals in, 15–17
construction of, 12–20
density, 17–18
multimodal, 19
Pareto diagram, 24
for pmf, 103
symmetric, 19
unimodal, 18
Hodges–Lehmann estimator, 379
Homogeneity, 745–747
Hyperexponential distribution, 229
Hypergeometric distribution,
138–141
and binomial distribution, 141
Hypergeometric random variable,
138–141
Hypothesis
alternative, 426
composite, 732–741, 744
definition of, 426
errors in testing of, 428–434
notation for, 426
null, 426
research, 427
simple, 469
Hypothetical population, 6
I Joint probability mass function,
Inclusive inequalities, 136
Incomplete beta function, 207
Incomplete gamma function,
196–197, 217
Independence
chi-squared test for, 749
conditional distribution and,
257–258
correlation coefficient
and, 250
covariance and, 250, 252
of events, 84–88
of jointly distributed random
variables, 238–239, 241
in linear combinations, 306–307
mutual, 87
pairwise, 90, 94
in simple random sample, 287
Independent variable, 614
Indicator variables, 696
Inductive reasoning, 6
Inferential statistics, 5–6
Inflection point, 180
Intensity function, 156
Interaction, 597–602, 603–606,
693–698
Intercept, 214, 617, 627
definition of, 53
multiplication rule for probability
of, 77–79
Invariance principle, 357
Inverse matrix, 712
J distribution of, 309
Jacobian, 267
Jensen’s inequality, 231
Joint cumulative distribution
function, 282
Jointly distributed random variables
bivariate normal distribution
of, 258–260
conditional distribution of,
253–263
correlation coefficients for, 249
covariance between, 248
expected value of function of,
245–246
independence of, 238–239
linear combination of, 306–312
in order statistics, 274–276
pdf of (see Joint probability
density functions)
pmf of (see Joint probability mass
functions)
transformation of, 265–270
variance of function of, 252, 307
Joint marginal density function, 245
233–234
Joint probability table, 233
K Location parameter, 217, 367
k-out-of-n system, 153
Kruskal–Wallis test, 784–785
k-tuple, 68–69
L fit of, 650–651
lag 1 autocorrelation coefficient, 674
Laplace distribution, 478
Laplace’s rule of succession, 782
Largest extreme value distribution, 228
Law of Large Numbers, 303–304,
322–323, 376
Law of total probability, 79
Least squares estimates, 626, 645,
679, 683–684
Level a test, 433
Level of a factor, 552, 583, 593
Levene test, 562–563
Leverages, 714–715
Likelihood function, 354, 470, 475
Likelihood ratio
chi-squared statistic for, 477
definition of, 470
mle and, 475
Index 839
model utility test and, 721
in Neyman–Pearson theorem, 470
significance level and, 470, 471
sufficiency and, 380
tests, 475
Limiting relative frequency, 58, 59
Linear combination
expected value of, 306
independence in, 306
variance of, 307
Linear probabilistic model, 617, 627
Linear regression
additive model for, 614, 682, 705
ANOVA in, 649, 699, 768
confidence intervals in, 643, 656
correlation coefficient in,
662–671
definition of, 617
degrees of freedom in, 631,
685, 708
least squares estimates in,
625–636, 679
likelihood ratio test in, 721
mles in, 631, 639
model utility test in, 648, 687, 708
parameters in, 617, 624–636, 682
percentage of explained variation
in, 633–634
prediction interval in, 654, 658, 689
residuals in, 629, 674, 685
summary statistics in, 627
sums of squares in, 631–636, 686
t ratio in, 648, 669, 690
Line graph, 102–103
Logistic distribution, 279
Logistic regression model
contingency tables for, 749–751
definition of, 620–622
mles in, 650
in multiple regression analysis, 699
Logit function, 621, 650
Lognormal distribution, 205–205, 233
Lognormal random variables, 205–206
M
Mann–Whitney test, 766–770
Marginal distribution, 234, 236, 253
Marginal probability density
functions, 236
Marginal probability mass
functions, 234
Matrices in regression analysis,
705–715
Maximum likelihood estimator
for Bernoulli parameter, 377
for binomial parameter, 377
840 Index
Maximum likelihood estimator
(cont.)
Cramér–Rao inequality and, 375
data sufficiency for, 369
Fisher information and, 371, 375
for geometric distribution
parameter, 742
in goodness-of-fit testing, 733
in homogeneity test, 745
in independence test, 748
in likelihood ratio tests, 475
in linear regression, 631, 639
in logistic regression, 650
sample size and, 357
score function and, 377
McNemar’s test, 526, 550
Mean
of Cauchy distribution, 322,
342, 761
conditional, 255–257
correction for the, 560
deviations from the, 33, 206, 563,
631, 739
of a function, 115, 245–246
vs. median, 28
moments about, 121
outliers and, 27, 28
population, 26
regression to the, 260, 636
sample, 25
of sample total, 296
See also Average
Mean square
expected, 573, 589, 593, 594,
600, 604
lack of fit, 681
pure error, 681
Mean square error
definition of, 335
of an estimator, 335
MVUE and, 341
sample size and, 337
Measurement error, 337
Median
in boxplot, 37–38
of a distribution, 27, 28
as estimator, 378, 478
vs. mean, 28
outliers and, 26, 28, 29
population, 28
sample, 27, 271
statistic, 378
Mendel’s law of inheritance, 726–728
M-estimator, 359, 381
Midfourth, 46
Midrange, 333
Mild outlier, 39, 393
Minimal sufficient statistic,
366–367, 369
Minimize absolute deviations
principle, 477, 679
Minimum variance unbiased
estimator, 341–343, 358,
369, 375
Mixed effects model, 593–603
Mixed exponential distribution, 229
mle. See Maximum likelihood
estimate
Mode
of a continuous distribution,
228, 229
of a data set, 46
of a discrete distribution, 156
Model utility test, 647–649
Moment generating function
of a Bernoulli rv, 122, 127
of a binomial rv, 135
of a chi-squared rv, 315
CLT and, 329–330
of a continuous rv, 175–177
definition of, 122, 175
of a discrete rv, 122–127
of an exponential rv, 221
of a gamma rv, 195
of a linear combination, 311
and moments, 124, 176
of a negative binomial rv, 143
of a normal rv, 191
of a Poisson rv, 149
of a sample mean, 329–330
uniqueness property of, 123, 176
Moments
definition of, 121
method of, 350–352, 358, 740
and moment generating function,
124, 176
Monotonic, 221, 353
Multimodal histogram, 19
Multinomial distribution, 240, 725
Multinomial experiment, 240, 724
Multiple regression
additive model, 682, 705
categorical variables in, 696–699
coefficient of multiple
determination, 686, 709
confidence intervals in, 712
covariance matrices in, 711–713
degrees of freedom in, 685,
696, 708
diagnostic plots, 691
fitted values in, 685
F ratio in, 687, 709
interaction in models for, 693–698
leverages in, 714–715
logistic regression model, 699
in matrix/vector format, 705–715
model utility test in, 687,
708–709
normal equations in, 683, 685,
705–708
parameters for, 682
and polynomial regression,
691–693
prediction interval in, 689
principle of least squares in,
683–706
residuals in, 685, 691, 688, 691,
708, 713
squared multiple correlation in,
686, 709
sum of squares in, 686, 708–710
t ratios in, 690, 712
Multiplication rule, 77–88
Multiplicative exponential
regression model, 721
Multiplicative power regression
model, 721
Multivariate data, 3, 20
Multivariate hypergeometric
distribution, 244
Mutually exclusive events, 54, 79
MVUE. See Minimum variance
unbiased estimator
N
Negative binomial distribution,
141–144
definition of, 141
estimation of parameters, 352, 738
Negative binomial random
variable, 141
Newton’s binomial theorem, 143
Neyman factorization theorem, 363
Neyman–Pearson theorem, 470–475
Noncentrality parameter, 423,
574, 582
Noncentral t distribution, 423
Nonhomogeneous Poisson
process, 156
Nonstandard normal distribution,
185–188
Normal distribution
asymptotic, 298, 371, 375, 377
binomial distribution and,
189–190, 302
bivariate, 258–260, 310, 318,
477, 677–671
confidence interval for mean of,
383–388, 392, 398, 403
continuity correction and, 189–190
density curves for, 180
and discrete random variables,
188–190
goodness-of-fit test for, 730, 740
of linear combination, 309
lognormal distribution and,
205, 303

nonstandard, 185–188
pdf for, 179
percentiles for, 182–188, 210
probability plot, 210, 740
Ryan–Joiner test for, 747
standard, 181
t distribution and, 320–322, 325,
402
z table, 181–183
Normal equations, 626, 683, 705
Normal probability plot, 210, 740
Normal random variable, 181
Null distribution, 443–444, 760, 780
Null hypothesis, 426
Null set, 54, 57
Null value, 427, 436
O scale, 195, 203, 217–218, 365
Observational study, 488
Odds ratio, 621–622, 750–751
One-sided confidence interval,
398–399
Operating characteristic curve, 137
Ordered categories, 749–751
Ordered pairs, 66–67
Order statistics, 271–278, 338,
365–367, 478
sufficiency and, 365–367
Outliers
in a boxplot, 37–41
definition of, 11
extreme, 39–41
leverage and, 714
mean and, 29, 415–417
median and, 29, 37, 415, 417
mild, 39
in regression analysis, 679, 688
P 663, 667
Paired data
in before/after experiments,
511, 526
bootstrap procedure for, 538–540
confidence interval for, 513–515
definition of, 509
vs. independent samples, 515
in McNemar’s test, 550
permutation test for, 540–541
t test for, 511–513
in Wilcoxon signed-rank test,
762–763
Pairwise average, 772, 773, 775
Pairwise independence, 94
Parallel connection, 55, 88, 89, 90,
272, 273
Parameter(s)
Bayesian approach to, 776–782
concentration, 779
confidence interval for, 389, 394
estimator for a, 332–346
Fisher information on, 371–377
goodness-of-fit tests for,
728–729, 732–736
hypothesis testing for, 427, 450
location, 217, 367
maximum likelihood estimate
of, 354–359, 369
moment estimators for, 350–352
MVUE of, 341–343, 358,
369, 375
noncentrality, 574
null value of, 427
of a probability distribution,
103–104
in regression, 617–618, 622,
624–636, 658, 666, 682
shape, 217–218, 365
sufficient estimation of, 361–369
Pareto diagram, 24
Pareto distribution, 170, 178, 226
pdf. See Probability density function
Percentiles
for continuous random variables,
166–168
in hypothesis testing, 458, 740
in probability plots, 211–216, 740
sample, 29, 210–211, 216
of standard normal distribution,
182–184, 211–216
Permutation, 68, 69, 535–541
Permutation test, 535–541
PERT analysis, 207
Plot
probability, 210–218, 369, 499,
668, 676, 688, 691, 740
scatter, 615–617, 632–633,
pmf. See Probability mass function
Point estimate/estimator
biased, 337–342
bias of, 335–340
bootstrap techniques for,
345–346, 411–418
bound on the error of
estimation of, 388
censoring and, 343–344
consistency, 304, 357, 375–377
for correlation coefficient, 665–666
and Cramér–Rao inequality,
373–377
definition of, 26, 287, 332
efficiency of, 375
Fisher information on, 371–377
least squares, 626–631
maximum likelihood (mle),
352–359
of a mean, 26, 287, 332–333, 366
Index 841
mean squared error of, 335
moments method, 350–352, 358
MVUE of, 340–342, 358, 369,
375
notation for, 332, 334
of a standard deviation and,
286, 340
standard error of, 344–346
of a variance, 334, 339
Point prediction, 405, 628, 684
Poisson distribution
Erlang distribution and, 202
expected value, 149, 152
exponential distribution and, 199
gamma distribution and, 783
goodness-of-fit tests for, 736–738
in hypothesis testing, 470–472,
474, 482, 550
mode of, 156
moment generating function
for, 149
nonhomogeneous, 156
parameter of, 149
and Poisson process, 149–151, 199
variance, 149, 152
Poisson process, 149–151, 194
Polynomial regression model,
691–693
Pooled t procedures
and ANOVA, 477, 504–505, 576
vs. Wilcoxon rank-sum
procedures, 769
Posterior probability, 79–81,
777, 781
Power curves, 574–575
Power function of a test, 473–475,
574–575
Power model for regression, 721
Power of a test
Neyman–Pearson theorem and,
473–475
type II error and, 446–447,
472–476, 505, 593, 749
Precision, 315, 344, 371, 382,
387–388, 397, 405, 417, 514,
516, 592, 781
Prediction interval
Bonferroni, 659
vs. confidence interval, 406,
658–659, 690
in linear regression, 654, 658–659
in multiple regression, 690
for normal distribution, 404–406
Prediction level, 405, 659, 689
Predictor variable, 614, 682,
693–696
Principle of least squares, 625–636,
674, 679, 683
Prior probability, 79, 758
842 Index
Probability
conditional, 74–81, 84–85, 200,
253–255, 362, 365–366
continuous random variables
and, 99, 158–225, 235–242,
253–255
counting techniques for, 66–72
definition of, 50
density function (see Probability
density function)
of equally likely outcomes, 62–63
histogram, 103, 159–160,
188–190, 289–290
inferential statistics and, 6, 9, 284
Law of Large Numbers and,
303–304, 322–323
law of total, 79
mass function (see Probability
mass function)
of null event, 57
plots, 210–218, 369, 499, 668,
676, 688, 691, 740
posterior/prior, 79–81, 758,
777, 781
properties of, 56–63
relative frequency and, 58–59,
291–292
sample space and, 51–55, 56–57,
63, 66, 95
and Venn diagrams, 54–55, 62,
75–76
Probability density function (pdf)
conditional, 254–255, 777
definition of, 161
joint, 232–278, 310, 354,
363–365, 368, 470, 475
marginal, 236–238, 268–269
vs. pmf, 162
Probability distribution
Bernoulli, 98, 102–104, 113,
122–123, 127, 134, 302, 304,
308, 360, 373, 375, 377, 777
beta, 206–208
binomial, 128–135, 147–149,
189–190, 302, 352–353,
395–396, 428–431
bivariate normal, 258–260,
477, 669
Cauchy, 226, 231, 271, 342
chi-squared, 200, 224, 315–320
conditional, 253–263
continuous, 99, 158–231
discrete, 96–157
exponential, 198–200, 203, 343
extreme value, 217–218
F, 323–325
family, 104, 213, 216–218, 558
gamma, 194–200, 217–218
geometric, 106–107, 114, 143, 225
hyperexponential, 229
hypergeometric, 138–141,
307–308
joint, 232–283, 665–667, 732
Laplace, 315, 477–478
of a linear combination, 259,
306–312
logistic, 279
lognormal, 205–206, 303
multinomial, 240, 724
negative binomial, 141–144
normal, 179–191, 205, 210–216,
258–260, 297–303, 309, 730
parameter of a, 103–104
Pareto, 170, 178, 226
Poisson, 146–151, 199
Rayleigh, 169, 226, 349, 360
of a sample mean, 285–294,
296–304
standard normal, 181–184
of a statistic, 285–304
Studentized range, 565
symmetric, 19, 28, 121, 168,
174, 180
t, 320–323, 325, 401–403, 443,
462, 511
uniform, 161–162, 164
Weibull, 202–205
Probability mass function
conditional, 253–254
definition of, 101–109
joint, 233–236
marginal, 234
Product rules, 66–68
Proportion
population, 30, 395, 450–454,
519–525
sample, 30, 190, 302, 338, 519,
748
trimming, 29, 333, 340, 342–343
P-value
for chi-squared test, 727–728
definition of, 456
for F tests, 529–530
for t tests, 462–465
type I error and, 457–459
for z tests, 459–461
Q 470–474
Quadratic regression model, 691–693
Qualitative data, 19
Quartiles, 28–29
R Relative frequency, 13–19, 30,
Random effects model, 579–580,
593–594, 603–606
Random interval, 384–386
Randomized block experiment,
590–593
Randomized controlled
experiment, 489
Randomized response technique, 349
Random variable
continuous, 158–231
definition of, 97
discrete, 96–157
jointly distributed, 232, 233–283
standardizing of, 185
types of, 99
Range
definition of, 33
in order statistics, 271–274
population, 394
sample, 33, 271–274
Studentized, 565–566
Rank average, 785
Ratio statistic, 478
Rayleigh distribution, 226,
349, 360
Regression
coefficient, 640–651, 682–685,
705–707, 711–712
effect, 260, 636
function, 614, 676, 682, 685,
693, 696
line, 618–620, 624–636,
640–647, 674–677
linear, 617–620, 624–636,
640–649, 654–659
logistic, 620–622, 650–651
matrices for, 705–715
to the mean, 260
multiple, 682–689
multiplicative exponential
model, 721
multiplicative power model
for, 721
plots for, 676–678
polynomial, 691–693
quadratic, 691–693
through the origin, 381–421
Rejection method, 281
Rejection region
cutoff value for, 428–433
definition of, 428
lower-tailed, 431, 437–438
in Neyman–Pearson theorem,
two-tailed, 438
type I error and, 429
in union-intersection test, 551
upper-tailed, 429, 437–438
58–59
Repeated measures designs, 591
Replications, 58, 291–293, 386
Research hypothesis, 427
Residual plots, 588, 602, 676–678

Residuals
in ANOVA, 588, 602
definition of, 556
leverages and, 714–715
in linear regression, 629, 674–678
in multiple regression, 685, 688
standard error, 674
standardizing of, 675, 691
variance of, 675, 713
Response variable, 8, 614, 620
Retrospective study, 488
Ryan–Joiner test, 741
S z test and, 440–441, 452–453
Sample
convenience, 7
definition of, 2
outliers in, 38–40
simple random, 7, 287
size of (see Sample size)
stratified, 7
Sample coefficient of variation, 45
Sample correlation coefficient
in linear regression, 662–664,
669, 719
vs. population correlation
coefficient, 666, 669–671
properties of, 664–665
strength of relationship, 665
Sample mean
definition of, 25
population mean and, 296–304
sampling distribution of, 296–304
Sample median
definition of, 27
in order statistics, 271–272
vs. population median, 417
Sample moments, 350–351
Sample percentiles, 210–211
Sample proportion, 30, 335–336,
338, 391–400, 450–455,
519–526
Sample size
in ANOVA, 574–576
asymptotic relative efficiency
and, 764, 769
bound on the error of estimation
and, 388
Central Limit Theorem and, 302
confidence intervals and,
387–388, 394, 396, 403, 495
definition of, 9
in finite population correction
factor, 140
for F test, 574–576
for Levene test, 562–563
mle and, 357–358, 375
noncentrality parameter and,
574–576, 582
Poisson distribution and, 147
for population proportion,
396–398
power and, 433, 440–441, 445,
452–454, 489, 505, 523
probability plots and, 216
in simple random sample, 287
t distribution and, 445, 505
type I error and, 433, 440-441,
445, 489, 523
type II error and, 433, 440–441,
445, 452–454, 489, 505, 523
variance and, 303
Sample space
definition of, 51
probability of, 56–63
Venn diagrams for, 54–55
Sample standard deviation
in bootstrap procedure, 413, 537
confidence bounds and, 398
confidence intervals and, 392,
403
definition of, 33
as estimator, 340, 379
expected value of, 340, 379
independence of, 318–319
mle and, 357
population standard deviation
and, 286, 340, 379
sample mean and, 34, 318–319
sampling distribution of,
288–289, 320, 340, 379, 482
variance of, 482
Sample total, 296, 306, 560
Sample variance
in ANOVA, 555–556
calculation of, 35
definition of, 33
distribution of, 287–289, 320
expected value of, 339
population variance and, 35, 317,
322–323, 339
Sampling distribution
bootstrap procedure and, 413,
532, 758
definition of, 284, 287
derivation of, 288–291
of intercept coefficient, 719
of mean, 288–290, 297–299
permutation tests and, 758
simulation experiments for,
291–294
of slope coefficient, 640–649
Scale parameter, 195, 203–204,
217–218, 365
Scatter plot, 615–617
Scheffé method, 610
Score function, 373–377
Index 843
Series connection, 272–273
Set theory, 53–55
Shape parameters, 217–218, 366
Siegel–Tukey test, 786
Significance
practical, 468–469, 727
statistical, 469, 489, 727
Significance level
definition of, 433
joint distribution and, 479
likelihood ratio and, 475
observed, 458
Sign interval, 784
Sign test, 784
Simple events, 52, 62, 66
Simple hypothesis, 469, 732
Simple random sample
definition of, 7, 287
independence in, 287
sample size in, 287
Simulation experiment, 288,
291–294, 417, 463
Skewed data
coefficient of skewness, 121, 178
definition of, 19
in histograms, 19, 413
mean vs. median in, 28
measure of, 121
probability plot of, 216, 411–413
Slope, 617–618, 622, 626, 642, 644
Slope coefficient
confidence interval for, 644
definition of, 617–618
hypothesis tests for, 648
least squares estimate of, 626
in logistic regression model, 622
Standard deviation
normal distribution and, 179
of point estimator, 344–346
population, 117, 173
of a random variable, 117, 173
sample, 33
z table and, 186
Standard error, 344–346
Standardized variable, 185
Standard normal distribution
Cauchy distribution and, 271
chi-squared distribution and,
316, 325
critical values of, 184
definition of, 181
density curve properties for,
181–184
F distribution and, 323, 325
percentiles of, 182–184
t distribution and, 320, 325
Standard normal random variable,
181, 325
Statistic, 286
844 Index
Statistical hypothesis, 426
Stem-and-leaf display, 10–12
Step function, 106
Stratified samples, 7
Studentized range distribution, 565
Student t distribution, 320–323
Summary statistics, 627, 630,
645, 671
Sum of squares
error, 557, 631, 708
interaction, 599
lack of fit, 681
pure error, 681
regression, 636, 699, 708
total, 559–560, 587, 591, 645,
686
treatment, 557–560
Symmetric distribution, 19,
121, 168
T test, 769
Taylor series, 174, 579
t confidence interval
heavy tails and, 764, 769, 774
in linear regression, 643, 656
in multiple regression, 689, 712
one-sample, 403–404
paired, 513–515
pooled, 505
two-sample, 500, 515
t distribution
central, 423
chi-squared distribution and,
320, 325, 500, 504
critical values of, 322, 402,
444, 461
definition of, 320
degrees of freedom in,
320–321, 401–402
density curve properties for,
322, 402
F distribution and, 325, 576
noncentral, 423
standard normal distribution
and, 320, 322, 403
Student, 320–323
Test statistic, 428
Time series, 48, 674
Tolerance interval, 406
Treatment, 553, 555–556, 583
Tree diagram, 67–68, 78, 81, 87
Trial, 128–131
Trimmed mean
definition of, 28–29
in order statistics, 271–272
outliers and, 29
as point estimator, 333,
340, 343
population mean and, 340, 343
Trimming proportion, 29, 343
True regression function, 615
True regression line, 618–620, 625,
640–641
t test
vs. F test, 576
heavy tails and, 764, 769, 774
likelihood ratio and, 475, 476
in linear regression, 648
in multiple regression,
688–690, 712
one-sample, 443–445, 461,
474–476, 511, 769
paired, 511
pooled, 504–505, 576
P-value for, 461–462
two-sample, 499–504, 576, 515
type I error and, 443–445, 501
type II error and, 445–447, 505
vs. Wilcoxon rank-sum
vs. Wilcoxon signed-rank test,
763–764
Tukey’s procedure, 565–570, 578,
589–590, 603
Two one-sided tests, 551
Type I error
definition of, 429
Neyman–Pearson theorem
and, 470
power function of the test
and, 473
P-value and, 457–458
sample size and, 441
significance level and, 433
vs. type II error, 433
Type II error
definition of, 429
vs. type I error, 433
Type II error probability
in ANOVA, 574–576, 596
degrees of freedom and, 516
for F test, 574–576, 596
in linear regression, 653
Neyman–Pearson theorem
and, 469–472
power of the test and, 446, 473
sample size and, 440, 505,
477–478, 468, 495
in tests concerning means,
440, 445, 468, 489, 505
in tests concerning proportions,
452–453, 522–524
t test and, 445, 505
vs. type I error probability, 433
in Wilcoxon rank-sum
test, 769
in Wilcoxon signed-rank test,
763–764
U
Unbiased estimator, 337–344
minimum variance, 340–343
Uncorrelated random variables,
251, 307
Uniform distribution
beta distribution and, 778
Box–Muller transformation
and, 271
definition of, 161
discrete, 120
transformation and, 223–224
Uniformly most powerful test,
473–474
Unimodal histogram, 18–19
Union-intersection test, 551
Union of events, 53
Univariate data, 3
V
Variable(s)
covariate, 699
in a data set, 10
definition of, 3
dependent, 614
dummy, 696–699
explanatory, 614
independent, 614
indicator, 696–699
predictor, 614
random, 96–231
response, 614
Variance
conditional, 255–257
of a function, 118–119,
174–175, 328
of a linear function, 118–120, 307
population, 34–35, 117, 173
precision and, 781
of a random variable, 117, 173
sample, 33–37
Venn diagram, 54–55, 62, 75, 76
W
Weibull distribution
basics of, 202–205
chi-squared distribution and, 231
estimation of parameters, 356,
359–360
extreme value distribution
and, 217
probability plot, 217–218
Weighted average, 112, 171, 261,
504, 779, 781
Weighted least squares
estimates, 679
Wilcoxon rank-sum test, 766–769
Wilcoxon signed-rank test,
759–764

Z z curve
z confidence interval
for a correlation coefficient, 671
for a difference between
means, 493
for a difference between
proportions, 524
for a mean, 387, 392
for a proportion, 395
Index 845
for a difference between
area under, maximizing means, 485–493
of, 479 for a difference between
rejection region and, 438 proportions, 521
t curve and, 322, 402 for a mean, 438, 442
z test for a Poisson parameter,
chi-squared test and, 752 400, 482
for a correlation for a proportion, 451
coefficient, 669 P-value for, 459–461