Unformatted text preview: the conduction velocities are significantly slower in the poisoned individuals. (b). The hypotheses are Ho : & 2 = 25 versus Ha: & 2 > 25. Here s = 7 and n=16. Testing at ³ = 0.05, the c.v. = 25.0. Calculate ± 2 = 29.4 which is bigger than the c.v. And 0.01< Pvalue < 0.025, so reject Ho . That is, the data indicates that the poisoned individuals are more variable in their sciatic nerve conduction velocities than normal individuals. 7. s 2 = 1.33 (calculated from the given data) The hypotheses are Ho : & 2 = 0.92 versus Ha: & 2 > 0.92. Here n=16. Testing at ³ = 0.05, the c.v. = 25.0. Calculate ± 2 = 21.68 which is less than the c.v. And Pvalue > 0.1, so there is no enough evidence to reject Ho . That is, the data doesn’t provide enough evidence that the population variance is greater than 0.92....
View
Full Document
 Winter '08
 Prado,R
 Statistics, Biostatistics, Normal Distribution, versus Ha

Click to edit the document details