Scribd
Upload
2 views2 pages

MPG Comparison: Manual vs. Automatic Cars

The study compares the mean city MPG of cars with manual and automatic transmissions, finding a significant difference with manual cars averaging 3.73 mpg higher. Using a two-sample t-test, the test statistic was approximately 3.30 with a p-value of 0.0029, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. This suggests that manual transmissions offer a statistically significant advantage in fuel efficiency, which is relevant for consumers and policymakers.

Uploaded by

brave2blue
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2 views2 pages

MPG Comparison: Manual vs. Automatic Cars

The study compares the mean city MPG of cars with manual and automatic transmissions, finding a significant difference with manual cars averaging 3.73 mpg higher. Using a two-sample t-test, the test statistic was approximately 3.30 with a p-value of 0.0029, leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis. This suggests that manual transmissions offer a statistically significant advantage in fuel efficiency, which is relevant for consumers and policymakers.

Uploaded by

brave2blue
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Below is a concise, instructor-ready answer (clear steps, calculations shown,

interpretation in context).
(1) Hypotheses
Let μ_manual = mean city MPG for cars with manual transmissions, μ_auto =
mean city MPG for cars with automatic transmissions.
 H 0 : μmanual =μauto (no difference)

 H a : μmanual ≠ μauto (two-sided)

We will use a two-sample t-procedure (Welch’s version) because we compare


means from two independent groups and cannot assume equal population
variances.

Given summary data


Automatic: x́ auto =16.12 , s auto =3.58 ,n auto =26
Manual: x́ manual =19.85 , s manual =4.51 , nmanual =26

Difference (manual − automatic): x́ d =19.85− 16.12=3.73 mpg.


Standard error (SE) for the difference:

√
s 2auto s 2manual
√
2 2
3.58 4.51
S E= + = + ≈ 1.1293
nauto n manual 26 26

(2) Test statistic


x́ manual − x́ auto 3.73
t= = ≈3.30
SE 1.1293
(rounded to two decimals: t ≈ 3.30 ).

(3) Degrees of freedom (Welch’s approximation)


2
( s2auto /nauto + s2manual /nmanual )
df ≈ 2 2 2
≈ 47.6
( sauto /nauto ) / ( n auto −1 ) + ( s 2manual /nmanual ) / ( n manual −1 )
Round for reporting: d f ≈ 48.
(4) Conclusion (using the provided p-value)
Given the two-sided p-value = 0.0029 (reported), and α =0.05 :
 p=0.0029<0.05 → reject H 0.

Interpretation: There is strong statistical evidence that average city MPG


differs between manual and automatic cars. The sample indicates manual
transmissions have higher city fuel efficiency by about 3.73 mpg on
average. This difference is statistically significant (two-sided test, t ≈ 3.30 ,
d f ≈ 48, p=0.0029).
Practical note: A ~3.7 mpg advantage in city driving is likely meaningful to
consumers and policymakers (fuel-economy labeling, fleet selection), but
practical significance should be considered alongside sample
representativeness and other factors (vehicle class, engine size).
Reference (example for method): Moore, D. S., Notz, W. I., & Fligner, M.
A. (2021). The basic practice of statistics (9th ed.). W. H. Freeman.

You might also like