2019042915254320190418161446memorandum1 x20190429152539instrucrions1
MEMORANDUM
To:The Honorable Farah Hadi
CC: Tolford v. The Automotive Shaft Company
From: Student’s name
Date: April 18, 2019
Subject: Critical comparison of opposing claims, analytical thinking, and problem-solving
Question Presented
1. Conduct the appropriate hypothesis test. Whose claim would you support?
2. What is the t -test outcomes?
3. What is the p – value?
4. What distribution used?
Brief Answer
1. Formulating the null and alternative hypotheses,
Ho: u = 3.5
Ha: u > 3.5
As we can see, this is a right tailed test.
Getting the test statistic, as :
The p-value for this one tailed test is computed as: ( for n-1 = 7 degrees of freedom )
The distribution used here would be t-distribution because we are given the sample standard deviation and not the population standard deviation.
Facts
The information used in this analysis are as follows:
amount of shaft wear = 0.0001in
n = 8
s = 1.25
μ = 3.50
sample mean = 3.72
Discussion
This analysis is to determine and evaluate if the population mean µ is greater than 3.50. To derive the answer, the calculation of p-value and the t-test, justifying wethere the the null hypothesis will be rejected or not with the utilization of significance level of 0.05. Since, t-tes and the p -value are accuae approcah to evalaute the hypothesis given. The outcome of the t-test is 0.498 ≤ tc = 1.895. The outcome for the p-value is 0.3169. These both outcomes from the applied analysis, it is concluded that the null hypothesis is not reject sine, the t-test outcome is greater than the significance level of 5%, same with the outomes of the p – value.
Counterargument
It was argued that the averages shaft wear has mean 3.50 larger the alternative hypothesis that the true mean is less than 3.5. Based on the information, the significance level provided, the significance level is argument is not valid, because given the result of t- tests is 1.895 which is higher than the given 5% of significance level used, therefore, the arguments is false or not valid.
Conclusion
It is concluded that the null hypothesis H0 is not rejected. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to claim that the population mean µ is greater than 3.50, at the significance level
of 0%.
Visual support
Figure 1: Probability Density function
Figure 2: Cumulative Distribution function
Addendum 1: Statistical Calculations
T – Test
P – value
p= P( t_7 > 0.4978 ) = 0.3169
Critical comparison of opposing claims, analytical thinking, and problem-solving 1
4/18/2019 Topic: W3.3&4 – W.3 &4 Peer Reviews 13
https://usflearn.instructure.com/groups/371989/discussion_topics/5397102 1/3
This is a graded discussion: 2
0
points possible due Apr 19
W3.3&4 ‑ W.3 &4 Peer Reviews 13
From
#GEA 2 Writing Assignment 3
Parts 3.3 Legal Memorandum and 3.4 Peer Reviews
You can complete this assignment after reading Chapter 8 in your textbook and Writing Assignment
3.1. The problem involves objectively verifying claims using statistical tests T.
Assignment Parts:
Part 3.3: Write, edit and proofread (https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tipsandtools/editingand
proofreading/) your memorandum (due April 19).
Part 3.4: Peer reviews (https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/peerreview/tips.html) (due April 23).
Submitting and completing peer reviews:
You have each been assigned to a group of 5 people (two groups have only 4 people). Submit your
assignment to the discussion board that has been set up for you. Submissions in any other location
will not be visible and will not get credit. If you still are not comfortable with discussion boards
select the circled question mark on your main canvas menu and then select “Search the Canvas
Guides” where you can search on discussion boards and review the resources on using discussion
boards.
To complete reviews, reply to the work of each of your group members. Feedback MUST be
actionable, that is something specific that they can continue to do, do more of, change or add to their
work.
Writing Assignment 3.3
Problem Description: Critical comparison of opposing claims, analytical thinking, and problem
solving
The amount of shaft wear (.0001 in.) after a fixed mileage was determined for each of n = 8 internal
combustion engines having a copper lead as a bearing material, resulting in and s =
1.25. Assuming that the distribution of shaft wear is normal with mean μ, use the appropriate test at
level .05 to test H : = 3.50 versus H : 3.50. Please state any assumption you have made if
necessary.
Shaft wear in excess of 3.50 could lead to catastrophic failures in extreme weather conditions.
Engineers for the manufacturer of the shafts claim that the shaft wear is within acceptable limits.
0
https://usflearn.instructure.com/courses/1320980
https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/peerreview/tips.html
4/18/2019 Topic: W3.3&4 – W.3 &4 Peer Reviews 13
https://usflearn.instructure.com/groups/371989/discussion_topics/5397102 2/3
Search entries or author
Lawyers representing a class action legal suit filed against the company feel that recent deaths due to
catastrophic vehicle failures for engines with this shaft are due to faulty bearings.
1. Conduct the appropriate hypothesis test. Whose claim would you support?
2. Be sure to present the logic of your statistical approach clearly and completely to convince the
Judge and jury of your position.
3. Write your response as if you were presenting evidence as an unbiased expert witness.
Audience: As the expert witness for this case, your primary audience is the jury who will be reviewing
the case documents. NOTE: this is a different primary audience than your reading discusses. This
audience is assumed not to have the specific technical knowledge of the field the witness is
explaining. The expert witness must persuade the audience of their expertise and their presentation
of the case is the most credible assessment of the facts possible.
Officers of the court, legal advisories, and opposing expert witnesses are important secondary
audiences, making it necessary to address any ideas that would counter your case and present why
they do not disqualify your case.
Document: This document should present as a memorandum to the court in the case Tolford v. The
Automotive Shaft Company. The primary addressee is the Judge The Honorable Farah Hadi.
Due Date: April 19, 2019
Writing Assignment 3.4
In the week following the first part of the assignment complete the following peer review
(https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/peerreview/tips.html) of the two classmates who submitted directly
after you on Canvas. You must include feedback in the reviews that will enable the writers to improve
their final submittal. As a minimum, address the following after considering the approach and
justification of your peers’ work:
Are their approaches and justifications clear to you?
What aspects of their responses were particularly helpful in making this clear? OR, What changes
would help to make it clearer?
Did your peers utilize a professional writing style as outlined in the assignment? Provide examples
of how they did or did not meet this requirement.
At the end of your review, offer a general assessment of how your peers completed their assignments.
Utilizing the exact language below, indicate whether they:
Met minimum writing requirements
Exceeded minimum writing requirements
Did not meet minimum writing requirements
DUE: April 23, 2019
Unread
https://serc.carleton.edu/sp/library/peerreview/tips.html
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
