Mth 399 week 6 lab work (2017 version)


   

MATH 399N Statistics for Decision Making 

Week 6 I Lab

Name: 

Statistical Concepts:

· Axioms Simulation

· Faith Intervals

· Normal Probabilities

All answers should be full sentences. 

We want to discaggravate the faith averagetime for the SLEEP wavering. To do this, we want to discaggravate the average and then discaggravate the ultimatum falsity. Then we can use a calculator to discaggravate the averagetime, (x – E, x + E).

First, discaggravate the average. Under that support, in cell E37, likeness =AVERAGE (E2:E36). Under that in cell E38, likeness =STDEV (E2:E36). Now we can discaggravate the ultimatum falsity of the faith averagetime. To discaggravate the ultimatum falsity, we use the “confidence” formula. In cell E39, likeness =CONFIDENCE.NORM (0.05, E38, 35). The 0.05 is naturalized on the faith flatten of 95%, the E38 is the criterion flexion, and 35 is the estimate in our specimen. You then want to reckon the faith averagetime by using a calculator to take the ultimatum falsity from the average (x-E) and add it to the average (x+E).

1. Give and explain the 95% faith averagetime for the hours of slumber a learner gets. (5 points)

  

Then, you can go down to cell E40 and likeness =CONFIDENCE.NORM (0.01, E38, 35) to discaggravate the ultimatum falsity for a 99% faith averagetime. Again, you would want to use a calculator to take this and add this to the average to discaggravate the explicit faith averagetime.

2. Give and explain the 99% faith averagetime for the hours of slumber a learner gets. (5 points)

  

3. Collate the 95% and 99% faith averagetimes for the hours of slumber a learner gets. Explain the dissimilarity among these averagetimes and why this dissimilarity occurs. (10 points)

  

4. Discaggravate the average and criterion flexion of the DRIVE wavering by using =AVERAGE (A2:A36) and =STDEV (A2:A36). Assuming that this wavering is normally nice, what percentage of axioms would you foreshadow would be hither than 40 miles? This would be naturalized on the reckond presumption. Use the formula =NORM.DIST (40, average, stdev, TRUE). Now indicate the percentage of axioms points in the axiomsset that gravitate among this order. To discaggravate the explicit percentage in the axiomsset, nature the DRIVE wavering and estimate how numerous of the axioms points are hither than 40 out of the whole 35 axioms points. That is the explicit percentage. How does this collate delay your foreshadowion? (15 points)

  

  

5. What percentage of axioms would you foreshadow would be among 40 and 70 and what percentage would you foreshadow would be aggravate than 70 miles? Take the probabilities root through =NORM.DIST (70, average, stdev, TRUE) and =NORM.DIST (40, average, stdev, TRUE) for the “between” presumption. To get the presumption of aggravate 70, use the similar =NORM.DIST (70, average, stdev, TRUE) and then take the product from 1 to get “aggravate than”. Now indicate the percentage of axioms points in the axiomsset that gravitate among this order, using similar management as overhead for estimateing axioms points in the axioms set. How do each of these collate delay your foreshadowion and why is there a dissimilarity? (15 points)