{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Lab 6 - Azfar Khandoker Dr Knapp Stat 350 4:30 Lab#6 1 a...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Azfar Khandoker Dr. Knapp Stat 350 4:30 Lab #6 1. a. Source df SS MS F p-value Preservative 3 19.80 6.60 0.03 0.9929 Species 6 13085.49 2180.91 9.95 <0.0001 Preservative x species 18 68988.65 3832.70 17.49 <0.0001 Error 112 24542.65 219.13 Total 139 106636.58 b. i. No, the effect of preservative was not significant. ii. F = 0.03 with df 1 = 3 , df 2 = 112 iii. p-value = 0.9929 iv. Preservative N Mean Loss Std. Dev Loss ACA 35 101.71 30.62 CCA 35 101.37 19.10 Creosote 35 101.34 33.91 PCP 35 100.67 26.15 c. i. Yes, the effect of species was significant. ii. F = 9.95 with df 1 = 6 , df 2 = 112 iii. p-value = less than 0.0001 iv.
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Maple Red Oak Redwood Spruce White Cedar Ash Red Cedar 119.53 103.79 103.54 102.91 97.34 97.08 84.73 ______ _____________________________________________________ ______________________ __ d. i. Yes, there was significant interaction effect. ii. F = 17.49 with df 1 = 18 , df 2 = 112 iii. p-value = less than 0.0001 e. 2. a. Source df SS MS F p-value Preservative 3 33830.22 11276.74 59.38 <.0001 Error 16 3038.40 189.90 Total 19 36868.62 b. i. Yes, the effect of preservative was significant. ii. F = 59.38 with df 1 = 3 , df 2 = 16 iii.
Image of page 2
p-value = less than 0.0001 iv. ACA CCA PCP Creosote 144.98 100.14 51.16 42.64 _ 3. No, the conclusions that were obtained were not the same. The difference in conclusions is because of the data that was used to obtain the conclusion. In the first conclusion, the data that was used was from all of the species of wood; however the second conclusion was based only of Red Cedar data. Since the data pool was not the same for both conclusions, even though the first conclusion contains data from the second conclusion, they cannot be the same. This is why the two conclusions for the effect of preservative are different. 4. Based on our calculations, we conclude that there is no significant main effect of the preservative on all of the species of wood. However, there is a statistically significant effect on the species of wood that is used. We also conclude that there is a major interaction effect of both the preservative and the species of wood on the amount of weight lost. Based on our findings, we recommend the use of Red Cedar with either PCP or Creosote as the preservative.
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern