Salac, Ramon Kristian
1. The research director of a leading beverage conducted a research to measure the effectiveness of a
classical flavoring. A sample of 20 persons tasted the beverage with the classical flavoring, and 30 pers
asked to rate their enjoyment on the beverage, the highest score is 20 and the lowest is 0. The summa
and at a .01 level of significance, is there significant difference between the enjoyment level of the two d
Average
Flavoring Sample Variance
enjoyment Decision Rule:
New 30 16.75 8.97 Reject the null hypothesis if T < -
Clasical 20 15.95 8.75 null hypothesis.
Null Hypothesis: T-test Value:
There is no significant difference between the enjoyment T = (xbar1 - xbar2)
level of the two differently flavored beverages √s2p( 1n1 + 1n2 )
Pooled Variance:
Alternative Hypothesis: = (n1 - 1) s21 + (n2 - 1) s22
There is a significant difference between the enjoyment (n1 - 1) + (n2 - 1)
level of the two differently flavored beverages
Conclusion:
Level of Significance: Do not reject the null hypothesis,
.01/2 = 0.005 enough evidence to prove that th
enjoyment level of the two differe
Degree of Freedom: Recommendation:
(30-1)+(20-1)= 48 Try to experiment on improving th
be done by continuing the sale o
they reach the desired sample si
Critical Value: ±2.682 the taste and sales of the produc
2. Two medical researchers looked into the effectiveness of a treatment for hypertension or high blood
randomly assigned to either Group A (placebo control or Group B (treatment); and were closely monitor
measured and recorded the changes in the blood pressure of the patients in each group. The summary
at .01 level of significance, is there evidence of significant difference on the change in blood pressures
Average
Groups Sample change in blood Variance
pressure
A (Placebo
Control) 21 -0.218 16.81
B (Treatment) 24 3.359 21.19
Decision Rule:
Null Hypothesis: Reject the null hypothesis if T < -
There is no significant difference between the change in null hypothesis.
blood pressures of the two groups of patients
T-test Value:
Alternative Hypothesis: T = (xbar1 - xbar2)
There is a significant difference between the change in √(s21/n1+ s22/n2 )
blood pressures of the two groups of patients
Conclusion:
Level of Significance: Reject the null hypothesis, -2.757
.01/2 = 0.005 enough evidence to prove that th
change in blood pressures of the
Degree of Freedom: Recommendation:
(16.81/21+21.19/24) 2
The results sugguest that the trea
(16.81/21)2+(21.19/24)2 = 42.98 ≈ 43 to those who have hypertentsion
(21-1) (24-1) and work towards making it affor
of their financial status.
Critical Value: ±2.695
A-221
asure the effectiveness of a new flavoring of its beverage compared to beverage with
ssical flavoring, and 30 persons tasted the one with new flavoring. The participants were
the lowest is 0. The summary result of the study is shown below. Assuming equal variance
enjoyment level of the two differently flavored beverages?
sion Rule:
ct the null hypothesis if T < -2.682 or T > +2.682; otherwise, do not reject the
hypothesis.
(xbar1 - xbar2) = (16.75 - 15.95)
= 0.930
√s2p( 1n1 + 1n2 ) √8.883( 1/30 + 1/20 )
ed Variance:
1 - 1) s21 + (n2 - 1) s22 (30-1)(8.97)+(20-1)(8.75)
= = 8.883
(n1 - 1) + (n2 - 1) (30-1)+(20-1)
ot reject the null hypothesis, 0.930 < +2.682; which means that there is
gh evidence to prove that there is no significant difference between the
yment level of the two differently flavored beverages
ommendation:
o experiment on improving the new product's taste with a larger sample size, this could
one by continuing the sale of the first batch and asking for customer feedbacks until
reach the desired sample size, then make the probable changes that may improve
aste and sales of the product.
or hypertension or high blood pressure. In a clinical trial, 45 patients with hypertensions were
nt); and were closely monitored for three months. After which, the researchers
n each group. The summary of the results is shown below. Assuming unequal variance and
change in blood pressures of the two groups of patients?
sion Rule:
ct the null hypothesis if T < -2.695 or T > +2.695; otherwise, do not reject the
hypothesis.
(xbar1 - xbar2) = (-0.218 - 3.359)
= -2.757
= -2.757
√(s21/n1+ s22/n2 ) √( 16.81/21 + 21.19/24 )
ct the null hypothesis, -2.757< -2.695; which means that there is
gh evidence to prove that there is a significant difference between the
ge in blood pressures of the two groups of patients
ommendation:
results sugguest that the treatment A is effective, which is why it must be recommended
ose who have hypertentsion. They could also continue to polish and improve the treatment
work towards making it affordable so that it will be accessible to almost everybody regardless
eir financial status.