INFERENTIAL
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE
STATISTICS –
PROJECT BUSINESS
REPORT
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Table of Contents:
Problem -1 3
1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury? 3
1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger? 3
1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and has a foot
injury?
3
1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker? 3
Problem-2 4
2.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm? 4
2.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm.? 4
2.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5 kg per sq cm.? 5
2.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm.?
5
Problem-3 6
3. 1 Zingaro has reason to believe that the unpolished stones may not be suitable for printing. Do you
think Zingaro is justified in thinking so? 6
3.2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the same? 7
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE
Problem- 4 7
4. 1 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists? 7
4. 2 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on methods? 9
4. 3 What is the interaction effect between the dentist and method on the hardness of dental implants
for each type of alloy? 10
4. 4 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists and methods together? 11
Table of Figures:
Figure 1: Green Area indicates required probability ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Figure 2: Required probability indicated by green shaded area -------------------------------------------------------- 5
Figure 3: Required probability indicated by the green shaded region -------------------------------------------------5
Figure 4: Green shaded area indicates the required probability -------------------------------------------------------- 6
Figure 5: Interaction Plot Alloy 1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
Figure 6: Interaction Plot Alloy 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Problem-1
A physiotherapist with a male football team is interested in studying the relationship between foot injuries
and positions at which the players play. The data collected is summarized in the table below, Answer the
questions based on the table.
Striker Forward Attacking Midfielder Winger Total
Players Injured 45 56 24 20 145
Players Not Injured 32 38 11 9 90
Total 77 94 35 29 235
1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury?
From the given table we can see that the, number of players injured is 145, and the total number of
players is 235. Hence the probability that a randomly chosen player is injured is;
P (Injured) = 145/235 = 0.617
1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger?
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
Total number of players that are forwards or wingers is 123 (94 + 29), and total number of players under
NCODUI6ZVE
study is 235. Hence, the probability that a randomly chosen player is a forward or a winger is;
P (Forward OR Winger) = (94+29)/235 = 0.523
1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker
position and has a foot injury?
Note that this is a joint probability problem, where two conditions are being satisfied simultaneously. The
number of players who have a foot injury and who play in striker position is 45. The total number of
players under consideration is 235. Hence the probability that a player is a striker and is injured is;
P (Striker AND Injured) = 45/235 = 0.1914
1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker?
Note that this is a conditional probability problem, because not all players and considered. Given that
the chosen player is injured we need to find the probability that he is a striker. Since there are 145
injured players. The conditional probability is;
P (Striker|Injured) = 45/145 = 0.310
P (Human Error) = P (Radiation Leak AND Human Error)/ P (Radiation Leak | Human Error)
= 0.0012/0.1 = 0.012
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Problem-2
The breaking strength of gunny bags used for packaging cement is normally distributed with a mean of
5 kg per sq. centimetre and standard deviation of 1.5 kg per sq. centimetre. The quality team of the
cement company wants to know the following about the packaging material to better understand
wastage or pilferage within the supply chain; Answer the questions below based on the given
information; (Provide appropriate visual representation of your answers, without which marks will be
deducted)
2.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg
per sq cm?
Using the mean and the standard deviation of the normal distribution, we need to find the probability of a
gunny bag having a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm.(cumulative probability calculated using
[Link] function).
P (Breaking strength < 3.17) = 0.1112
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE
Figure 1 Green Area indicates required probability
2.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per
sq cm.?
Using the mean and the standard deviation of the normal distribution, we need to find the probability
of a gunny bag having a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm.
P (Breaking strength > 3.6) = 1 – 0.1753 = 0.8247
(Cumulative probability calculated using [Link] function).
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Figure 2 Required probability indicated by green shaded area.
2.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5
and 5.5 kg per sq cm.?
Using the mean and the standard deviation of the normal distribution, we need to find the probability
of a gunny bag having a breaking strength between 5kg per sq cm and 5.5 kg per sq cm.
P (5 < Breaking strength < 5.5) = 0.6306 – 0.5 = 0.1306
(Cumulative probability calculated using [Link] function).
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE
Figure 3 Required Probability indicated by the green shaded region.
2.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT
between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm.?
Using the mean and the standard deviation of the normal distribution, we need to find the probability
of a gunny bag having a breaking strength.
P ([Breaking strength < 3] or [Breaking strength > 7.5)
= P (Breaking strength < 3) + P (Breaking strength > 7.5)
= 0.0912 + (1 – 0.9522) = 0.0912 + 0.0478 = 0.1390
Another way of arriving at the same solution is to compute
1 – P (3 < Breaking strength < 7.5)
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Figure 4 Green shaded area indicates the required probability
Problem-3
Zingaro stone printing is a company which pecializes in printing images or patterns on polished or
unpolished stones. However, for optimum level of printing of the image the stone surface has to have a
Brinell’s hardness index of at least 150. Recently, Zingaro has received a batch of polished and unpolished
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE stones from its clients. Use the data provided to answer the following (assuming 5% significance level);
3. 1 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists?
The hypothesis test is formulated as below,
H0 = The population mean BHI for unpolished stones is at least 150 or (µu ≥ 150)
H1 = The population mean BHI for unpolished stones is at least 150 or (µu < 150)
Looking at the Hypothesis formulation, it can be observed that this is a left tailed test with a Level of
Significance 0.05 (α = 5%).
Output –
As observed above, since the numerical value of the test statistic is smaller than the critical value,
the P-value is smaller than the level of significance. Hence, the Null Hypothesis that the unpolished
stone surfaces have an average BHI of at least 150 is rejected.
Zingero is justified in concluding that the unpolished stones are not suitable for optimal level of
printing.
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
3. 2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the
same?
H0: The population mean BHI for Polished stones and Unpolished stones is equal
(µp = µu) or (µp - µu =0)
H1: The population mean BHI for Polished stones and Unpolished stones is not equal
(µp ≠ µu) or (µp - µu ≠ 0)
Note that this is a two-tailed test with a Level of Significance of 0.05 (α = 5%). Output -
Note that the test statistic is larger than the upper critical value and hence the P-value is smaller
than the level of significance. The Null Hypothesis that the polished stone surfaces have a BHI equal
to that of the unpolished stones will be rejected.
Average hardness of the polished and the unpolished stones is not equal.
Problem- 4
The hardness of metal implant in dental cavities depend on multiple factors, such as the method of implant,
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
the temperature at which the metal is treated, the alloy used as well as on the dentists who may favour one
NCODUI6ZVE method above another and may work better in his/her favourite method. Response is the variable of interest.
4.1 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists?
Solution-
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1
H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different dentists with type 1 alloy. HA1: Mean
implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the dentists with type 1 alloy.
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 2
H02: The mean implant hardness is the same across different dentists with type 2 alloy. HA2: Mean
implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the dentists with type 2 alloy.
For one dentist, p-value is smaller than 0.05. We will proceed with ANOVA.
Test of Normality (Shapiro) for Type 1 Alloy for Method variable
In none of the cases, p-value is smaller than 0.05. Hence normality assumption is satisfied
Test of Normality (Shapiro) for Type 2 Alloy for Method variable
For one dentist, p-value is smaller than 0.05. We will proceed with ANOVA.
Levene test of equal variance for Type 1 and Type 2 Alloy for Method variable
Form above result for both alloy 1 and alloy 2 p value is less than 0.05 we can conclude that
the variances are not equal
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Levene test of equal variance for Type 1 and Type 2 Alloy for Dentist variable
Form above result for both alloy 1 and alloy 2 p value is greater than 0.05 we can conclude that
the variances are equal.
Since the level of significance is 5%, we can check from the below ANOVA output arrived at by using
the anova_lm function from scipy. stats.
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1
H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different dentists with type 1 alloy. HA1:
Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the dentists with type 1 alloy.
Since p-value is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis of equality.
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 2
H02: The mean implant hardness is the same across different dentists with type 2 alloy. HA2:
Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the dentists with type 2 alloy.
Since p-value is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis of equality.
As Null Hypothesis is not rejected, so no need to do post hoc test Tukey HSD
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
4. 2 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on methods?
Solution-
Since the level of significance is 5%, we can check from the below ANOVA output arrived at by
using the anova_lm function from scipy. stats.
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1
H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different methods with type 1 alloy.
HA1: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the methods with type 1 alloy.
Since p-value is smaller than 0.05, null hypothesis is rejected. At least one method is different
from the rest.
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 2
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE
H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different methods with type 2 alloy.
HA1: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the methods with type 2 alloy.
Since p-value is smaller than 0.05, null hypothesis is rejected. At least one method is different
from the rest.
Post hoc test Tukey HSD
Null rejected here, using Tukey HSD we get that Group 3 is different from Groups 1 and 2.
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
4.3 What is the interaction effect between the dentist and method on the hardness
of dental implants for each type of alloy?
Solution –
Since the level of significance is 5%, we can check from the below ANOVA output arrived at by
using the anova_lm function from scipy. stats.
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1
H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different temperature with type 1 alloy. HA1:
Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the temperature with type 1 alloy.
As we can see from the ANOVA output the P-value is more than the level of significance, we are Failed
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
to Reject the Null Hypothesis
NCODUI6ZVE
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 2
H01: The mean implant hardness is the same across different temperature with type 2 alloy. HA1:
Mean implant hardness is different for at least one pair of the temperature with type 2 alloy.
As we can see from the ANOVA output the P-value is more than the level of significance, we are Failed
to Reject the Null Hypothesis
As Null Hypothesis is not rejected, so no need to do post hoc test Tukey HSD
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Figure 5 Interaction Plot Alloy 1
We can clearly say that mean hardness of dental implant is not same when different Dentists are using
different Methods in Alloy 1. This interaction is very significant here.
Figure 6 Interaction Plot Alloy 2
We can clearly say that mean hardness of dental implant is not same when different Dentists are using
different Methods in Alloy 2. This interaction is very significant here.
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE
4.4 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists and methods
together?
Solution –
Since the level of significance is 5%, The two-way ANOVA can be tested using the anova_LM function
resulting in the below output.
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 1
H0: The mean implant hardness is same across different Dentists with type 1 Alloy. HA: Mean implant
hardness is different for at least one of the Dentist with type 1 Alloy.
H0: The mean implant hardness is same across different Methods with type 1 Alloy.
HA: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one of the Method type with type 1 Alloy.
H0: There is no interaction between Dentist and Method types with type 1 Alloy. HA: There is interaction
between Dentist and Method types with type 1 Alloy
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.
Interaction for Alloy 1
For alloy 1: Dentist, Method and their interaction all are significant
Hypothesis test formulation for Alloy 2
H0: The mean implant hardness is same across different Dentists with type 2 Alloy. HA: Mean implant
hardness is different for at least one of the Dentist with type 2 Alloy.
H0: The mean implant hardness is same across different Methods with type 2 Alloy.
HA: Mean implant hardness is different for at least one of the Method type with type 2 Alloy.
H0: There is no interaction between Dentist and Method types with type 1 Alloy. HA: There is interaction
between Dentist and Method types with type 1 Alloy
pranshutyagi1772@[Link]
NCODUI6ZVE
Interaction for Alloy 2
This file is meant for personal use by pranshutyagi1772@[Link] only.
Sharing or publishing the contents in part or full is liable for legal action.