Gerome Sunga

304158288
Section 1C
1.1.14
A) I would respond by saying although it may be larger than a half, the result is too close to
random chance to be sure if it's better or if the results are statisitically significant. When
running a simulation, the experiment was repeated a thousand times and showed a high pvalue or almost 0.23, showing the value is not statistically significant.
B) With such a small sample size and with such a big p-value shown in the simulation, one
cannot deduce whether tea or milk was first placed first
C) This new simulation showed a p-value of 0.01, making this result statistically significant.
This test shows that the person does have an ability better than random guessing. For the
applet, one must change the sample size to 16 and proportion to a maximum of 0.875 or
14/16 as this sampling is different prior to the past. My conclusion is that this person is
able to distinguish between whether milk or tea was placed first in comparison to that of
the initial experiment. This is justified by the differing values
1.2.1
D
1.2.2
C
1.2.3
B
1.2.4.
A
1.2.5.
B
1.2.7
B
1.2.10
A) Null Hypothesis
B) Alternative Hypothesis
C) p-hat - proportion in sample
D) actual value of a parameter
E) sample size
1.2.13

A) Null: Pointing at object will have no effect on Hope picking correctly

Alternative: Pointing at objects will have an effect on Hope's choices
B) Null: = 0.5
Alternative: > 0.5
C) p = 0.1855
D) Based on the p-value, Hope does not understand pointing towards an object
E) 47/100
F) i) value for null distribution
ii) value in favor of alternative hypothesis
1.2.19
A) Categorical: boxes
Quantitative: monkeys, dimetestance from monkey
B) proportion of monkeys that approached boxes with human guidance -> p
C) Sample of monkeys picked where humans gestured: 31/40. This value is a parameter.
We can denote this value with p .
D) Null: Human hand gestures have no effect on which boxes monkeys choose.
Alternative: Human hand gestures have a direct effect on boxes the monkeys choose
E) A coin can be an effective simulation analysis. The number of tosses can reflect sample
size and repetition can be done in order to increase accuracy of the experiment. The pvalue will decide whether the evidence is towards or against the null. In this case, heads
can be the monkeys which choose the human gestured boxes. Extrema can be placed as the
proportions that monkeys in the experiment chose.
F) By reading the p-value, you can decide if the observed data is convincing that the
monkeys can read gestures. In the simulation, the test yielded a p-value of 0.003 showing
that there is strong evidence against null. Therefore, the rhesus monkeys do have the
ability to understand human gestures.
1.3.2
standardized statistic: 0.224
1.3.3
Null Distribution A has a further value from 0. It is decided by caluculation the
standardized statistic where A has a value of 2 while B has a value of 1.45.
1.4.27
A) The Alternative is One Sided
B) Moderately Strong
C) p = 0.0835. We can state here that bees are not likely to sting already stung victims as
the evidence is not strong in support of the hypothesis.
1.5.1
C
1.5.2
No. Even with sample size of 100, 0.5 would yield highest standard deviation

1.5.3
A
1.5.4
A bell shaped sample proportions centered at the long run probability via the Central Limit
Theorem.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2.1.4
A) The parameter of interest is the whether women give more emotional support than
received.
B) i) CI = (0.9552, 0.9648)
ii) CI = (0.7419, 0.7921)
C) Test 1by Shere Hite may have had a smaller margin of error because the other test by
ABC/Washington Post may have been answered out of convenience, effectively skewing
results.
D) Poll two is probably more representative of the truth because the results of the first test
seem highly biased and the second seems much more realistic.
E) Polling method 1 was more likely biased and so this is an overestimate of the truth. It
can be biased because the people who chose to respond may come from a specific type of
population of woman who may have the time to respond to this type of questionaire
compared to others. This may be explained by the the fact only 4,500 out of 100,000 chose
to respond.
2.2.5
A) Null: There is no difference between the SPF of suncreen that students use
Alt: There is a difference between the SPF of sunscreen used
B) D
C)

D) This value is very highly insignificant

E) The value shows there is no correlation between the SPF that the students use.
F) The conditions for validity are satisifed.
2.3.6
A) Size of the needle = p
B) null - The size of needle does not affect if the donor gets hurt
alt - size of the needle does affect whether the donor gets hurt
C) Needle size is irrelevant and does not hurt the blood donors
D) All needle sizes hurt the blood donors
2.CE.5
A) number of brides, how many kept names after marriage,
B) population = 18% (108), sample = 600
C) how many brides decided to keep their own names
D) (0.1493, 0.2107)
E) this interval shows how a very low percentage of women actually decided to keep their
own names after marriage.
F) (0.1396, 0.2204) - the midpoint is lower than 95% interval while the width is higher
than the 95% interval
G) I have a concern that the population may be generalized because it's such a small sample
size and the experiment should be done multiple times before i would feel comfortable
generalizing.