Sr.

No Topics Pages
1 Problem 1 & Solution 1 to 2
2 Problem 2 & Solution 2 to 3
3 Problem 3 & Solution 3 to 4
4 Problem 4 & Solution 4 to 5
5 Problem 5 & Solution 5 to 6
6 Problem 6 & Solution 6 to 7
7 Problem 7 & Solution 7 to 9
8 Dataset Links 9
9 Juptyer File Attached

Problem 1
A physiotherapist with a male football team is interested in studying the relationship between foot injuries and the positions at which the
players play from the data collected

Striker Forward Attacking Midfielder Winger Total

Players Injured 45 56 24 20 145

Players Not Injured 32 38 11 9 90

Total 77 94 35 29 235

1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury?
1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger?
1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and has a foot injury?
1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker?
1.5 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is either a forward or an attacking midfielder?
Solution :
1.1 : The probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury is 0.617.
P(Suffered Injury)= Total number of players injured/ Total number of players
= (145/235)
= 0.617
1.2 : The probability that a player is a forward or a winger is 0.5234.
P(Forward U Winger)=P(Forward) + P(Winger) -P (Forward n Winger)
= 94/235 + 29/235 - 0
= 0.5234
P (Forward n Winger)=0 as these are disjoint events .

1
1.3 : The probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and has a foot injury is 0.1915.
P (Striker n Foot Injury)=Total number of players who are strikers and are injured/Total number of players
= 45/235
=0.1915

1.4 : The probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker is 0.3103.
P(chosen injured player is a striker) = Total Striker who were injured / Total injured players
= 45/145
=0.3103

1.5 : The probability that a randomly chosen injured player is either a forward or an attacking midfielder is 0.5517.
P (Forward U Attacking Midfielder Injured Player)= Total forward or attacking midfielders who are injured/ Total injured players
= 80/145
= 0.5517

Problem 2
An independent research organization is trying to estimate the probability that an accident at a nuclear power plant will result in radiation
leakage. The types of accidents possible at the plant are, fire hazards, mechanical failure, or human error. The research organization also
knows that two or more types of accidents cannot occur simultaneously.
According to the studies carried out by the organization, the probability of a radiation leak in case of a fire is 20%, the probability of a radiation
leak in case of a mechanical 50%, and the probability of a radiation leak in case of a human error is 10%. The studies also showed the following;
• The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a fire is 0.1%.
• The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a mechanical failure is 0.15%.
• The probability of a radiation leak occurring simultaneously with a human error is 0.12%.

On the basis of the information available, answer the questions below:

2.1 What are the probabilities of a fire, a mechanical failure, and a human error respectively?
2.2 What is the probability of a radiation leak?
2.3 Suppose there has been a radiation leak in the reactor for which the definite cause is not known. What is the probability that it has been
caused by:
• A Fire.
• A Mechanical Failure.
• A Human Error.

Solution : It is a Bayes Theorem problem .

So the first thing that we must do is to define all the events . And the events are as follows :
F=Fire
M= Mechanical Failure
H=Human Error
R=Radiation Leak
N=No Accident
Probabilities are mentioned as below :
P(R|F)=20%=0.2
P(R|M)=50%=0.5
P(R|H)=10%=0.1
P(R n F)=0.1%=0.001
P(R n M)= 0.15%=0.0015
P(R n H)= 0.12%=0.0012
2.1 : P(Fire)=P(R n F)/ P(R|F)=0.001/0.2=0.005
P(Mechanical Failure)=P(R n M)/P(R|M)=0.0015/0.5=0.003
P(Human Error)=P(R n H)/P(R|H)=0.0012/0.1=0.012
2
2.2 : P(N)=1-(P(F)+P(M)+P(H))=0.98
P(R|N)=0
P( R n N)=P(N) * P(R|N)=0
P(R)=P(R n F) + P(R n M) + P(R n H) + P (R n N)=0.0037

2.3 : Using Conditional Probability rule :

P(FR) = P(R n F)/P(R) = 0.001/0.0037=0.2703
P(MR) = P(R n M)/P(R ) = 0.0015/0.0037=0.4054
P(HR) = P(R n H)/ P(R) = 0.0012/0.0037=0.3243

Problem 3:

The breaking strength of gunny bags used for packaging cement is normally distributed with a mean of 5 kg per sq. centimeter and a standard
deviation of 1.5 kg per sq. centimeter. The quality team of the cement company wants to know the following about the packaging material to
better understand wastage or pilferage within the supply chain; Answer the questions below based on the given information; (Provide an
appropriate visual representation of your answers, without which marks will be deducted)
3.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm?
3.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm.?
3.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5 kg per sq cm.?
3.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm.?

Solution : This is a problem of normal probability distribution. Though the distribution is not mentioned, in absence of any other information we assume
normality in the population and will calculate the cumulative probability for all the sub-parts using norm.cdf function.

Let’s define the constants here ,

Mu =5

Sigma =1.5

3.1 The proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm is 0.1112.

Figure 3.1 : P (X<3.17)

3.2 The proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per sq cm. is 0.8246.

Figure 3.2 : P (X >= 3.6)

3
3.3 The proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5 kg per sq cm is 0.1305.

Figure 3.3 : P (5< X <5.5)

3.4 The proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm is 0.1390.

Figure 3.4 : P (3< X <7.5)

Problem 4:
Grades of the final examination in a training course are found to be normally distributed, with a mean of 77 and a standard deviation of 8.5.
Based on the given information answer the questions below.
4.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade below 85 on this exam?
4.2 What is the probability that a randomly selected student scores between 65 and 87?
4.3 What should be the passing cut-off so that 75% of the students clear the exam?
Solution : This is a problem of normal probability distribution. Though the distribution is not mentioned, in absence of any other information
we assume normality in the population.
Mu = 77
Sigma = 8.5

4.1 The probability that a randomly chosen student gets a grade below 85 on this exam is 0.8267.

Figure 4.1 : P(X < 85)

4
4.2 The probability that a randomly selected student scores between 65 and 87 is 0.8013.

Figure 4.2 : P (65< X <87)

4.3 Let x be the marks such that 75% of the students score more than x,
P(X > x) = 0.75 => 1 – 0.75 = 0.25 . To calculate this we will use the percent point function i.e ppf
And the passing cut-off score is 71.27.

Problem 5:
Zingaro stone printing is a company that specializes in printing images or patterns on polished or unpolished stones. However, for the
optimum level of printing of the image the stone surface has to have a Brinell's hardness index of at least 150. Recently, Zingaro has received a
batch of polished and unpolished stones from its clients. Use the data provided to answer the following (assuming a 5% significance level);
5.1 Earlier experience of Zingaro with this particular client is favorable as the stone surface was found to be of adequate hardness. However,
Zingaro has reason to believe now that the unpolished stones may not be suitable for printing. Do you think Zingaro is justified in thinking so?
5.2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the same?
Solution :5.1 Zingaro thinks that unpolished stone is not suitable for printing that means average Brinell’s hardness index is less than 150
(For printing it should be 150).
So , the hypotheses are as below :
Null hypothesis : Unpolished stone is suitable for printing which means Brinell’s hardness index is atleast or equal to 150
Alternative hypothesis : Unpolished stone is not suitable for printing which means Brinell’s hardness index is less than 150.

• H0 : μ ≥ 150
• HA : μ < 150,

where μ be the population mean of unpolished stones

Assuming Level of significance α = 0.05
Sample Size = 75
Degrees of Freedom =75-1=74, since the sample size for both samples are the same .
Approach : Here, independent one sample one-tailed t test (> or < sign is there )is to be conducted although two set of samples are provided
but they are independent of each other so hypothesis for unpolished stones is being done here.
So , Test statistic tSTAT is -4.1646296 and p-value is 4.1712869974196425e-05 which is approximately equal to 0.0000
Decision rule : The p-value approach states that reject null hypothesis if p-value < significance level . In this case, the p-value is 0.0000 which is
not higher than the level of significance (0.05). So, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Conclusion : Since, the null hypothesis is rejected. At 5% significance level, there is enough evidence to make conclusion that the unpolished
stones are not suitable for printing and his claim is justified.
5.2 Hypotheses here are as below :
Null hypothesis : Mean hardness of Polished and Unpolished stones are the same.
Alternative hypothesis : Mean hardness of Polished and Unpolished stones are not same.

• H0 : μUnpolished = μTreated and Polished

• H0 : μUnpolished ≠ μTreated and Polished,
5
Where μUnpolished be the population mean of unpolished stones and μTreated and Polished be the population mean of treated and polished
stones.
Approach : The not equal to sign in the alternative hypothesis indicate that the test is two-tailed and here we will use two independent
samples t test .
So , Test statistic tSTAT is -3.2422 and p-value is 0.002
Decision rule : The p-value approach states that reject null hypothesis if p-value < significance level . In this case, the p-value is 0.002 which is
not higher than the significance level (0.05). Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Conclusion : Since, the null hypothesis is rejected . At 5% significance level, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the mean hardness
of the polished and unpolished stones are the same .

Problem 6:
Aquarius health club, one of the largest and most popular cross-fit gyms in the country has been advertising a rigorous program for body
conditioning. The program is considered successful if the candidate is able to do more than 5 push-ups, as compared to when he/she enrolled
in the program. Using the sample data provided can you conclude whether the program is successful? (Consider the level of Significance as 5%)
Note that this is a problem of the paired-t-test. Since the claim is that the training will make a difference of more than 5, the null and
alternative hypotheses must be formed accordingly. Dataset provided.
Solution :
On doing a preliminary check of the dataset, we can conclude the following things :

• There are no missing values in the dataset.

• Mean and Median Values of each sample are quite different from each other

• There is an outlier in the Before sample set.

• Data in both the samples looks symmetrically distributed.

Now lets understand and define the hypotheses and approach to be used .
The program is considered successful if the candidate is able to do more than 5 push-ups, as compared to when he/she is enrolled in the
program .
So , the hypotheses are as below :
Null hypothesis : The difference in push-ups is less than or equal to 5 and so the program is not successful
Alternative hypothesis : The difference in push-ups is more than 5 and so the program is successful. 6
 • H0 : μd <= 5
• HA : μd > 5

Where μd denotes the difference in push-ups before and after joining the program
Approach : The values of variable “After” depends upon the variable “Before” and since the population standard deviation (sigma) is unknown,
we will use two-sample Tstat test. And since the sole purpose of the test is to check whether the candidate is able to do more than 5 push-ups
compared to when he/she is enrolled in the program , we would prefer a One-sided Paired T-test.
Assuming Level of significance α = 0.05
Sample Size = 100
Degrees of Freedom =100-1= 99, since the sample size for both samples are the same .
So , Test statistic Tstat is -19.3226 and p-value is 1.1460209626255983e-35 which is approximately equal to 0.0000
Decision rule : The p-value approach states that reject null hypothesis if p-value < significance level . In this case, the p-value is 0.000 which is
not higher than the significance level (0.05). Hence, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Conclusion : Since, the null hypothesis is rejected . At 5% significance level, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there is an increase in
push-ups which is more than 5 after joining the program and hence the program is successful.

Problem 7:
Dental implant data: The hardness of metal implant in dental cavities depends on multiple factors, such as the method of implant, the
temperature at which the metal is treated, the alloy used as well as on the dentists who may favour one method above another and may work
better in his/her favourite method. The response is the variable of interest.
1. Test whether there is any difference among the dentists on the implant hardness. State the null and alternative hypotheses. Note that
both types of alloys cannot be considered together. You must state the null and alternative hypotheses separately for the two types of
alloys.?
2. Before the hypotheses may be tested, state the required assumptions. Are the assumptions fulfilled? Comment separately on both
alloy types.?
3. Irrespective of your conclusion in 2, we will continue with the testing procedure. What do you conclude regarding whether implant
hardness depends on dentists? Clearly state your conclusion. If the null hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify which pairs of
dentists differ?
4. Now test whether there is any difference among the methods on the hardness of dental implant, separately for the two types of alloys.
What are your conclusions? If the null hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify which pairs of methods differ?
5. Now test whether there is any difference among the temperature levels on the hardness of dental implant, separately for the two
types of alloys. What are your conclusions? If the null hypothesis is rejected, is it possible to identify which levels of temperatures
differ?
6. Consider the interaction effect of dentist and method and comment on the interaction plot, separately for the two types of alloys?
7. Now consider the effect of both factors, dentist, and method, separately on each alloy. What do you conclude? Is it possible to identify
which dentists are different, which methods are different, and which interaction levels are different?

Solution : Lets define the factors and response variable first :

Factors Response Variable

Method of Implant
Alloy Used Hardness of Metal
Temperature at which metal is Implant(Response)
treated
Dentists

Lets do ANOVA testing with each of the factors separately :

1. Effect of Dentists on Hardness of Metal Implant
The Hypothesis for the One Way ANOVA are:
H0: The mean responses on dental implant is the same for 5 types of dentists
Ha: For at least one dentist , mean responses of dental implant is different

Now, we see that the corresponding p-value is greater than alpha (0.05). Thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

2.
The Hypothesis for the One Way ANOVA are: 7
H0: The mean responses on dental implant is the same for 3 types of methods
Ha: For at least one method , mean responses of dental implant is different

Now, we see that the corresponding p-value is less than alpha (0.05). Thus, we reject the null hypothesis.

3.
The Hypothesis for the One Way ANOVA are:
H0: The mean responses on dental implant is the same for 2 types of alloys
Ha: For at least one alloys , mean responses of dental implant is different

Now, we see that the corresponding p-value is less than alpha (0.05). Thus, we reject the null hypothesis.

4.
The Hypothesis for the One Way ANOVA are:
H0: The mean responses on dental implant is the same at 2 types of temperature levels
Ha: For at least one temperature level , mean responses of dental implant is different

Now, we see that the corresponding p-value is greater than alpha (0.05). Thus, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

α
Dataset Links :
Link - Zingaro _company.csv
Link- Aquarius_gym.csv
Link- Dental Hardness Data.xlsx