Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
18 views7 pages

Math Assignment Unit 3

The document presents a statistical analysis involving two parts: the first part tests the habitat preferences of barking deer using a Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, concluding that they prefer certain habitats over others. The second part analyzes the distribution of downloads among experimental groups, also using a Chi-square test, which indicates a slight imbalance among the groups. Both tests reject their respective null hypotheses based on significant p-values.

Uploaded by

nazilaramzi25
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views7 pages

Math Assignment Unit 3

The document presents a statistical analysis involving two parts: the first part tests the habitat preferences of barking deer using a Chi-square goodness-of-fit test, concluding that they prefer certain habitats over others. The second part analyzes the distribution of downloads among experimental groups, also using a Chi-square test, which indicates a slight imbalance among the groups. Both tests reject their respective null hypotheses based on significant p-values.

Uploaded by

nazilaramzi25
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

1

MATH 1281-01 Statistical Inference - AY2025-T4

Math Assignment Unit 3

Instructor: Ankita Devdhara

May 1, 2025
2

Part 1

a. Hypotheses

 Null Hypothesis (H₀): Barking deer forage equally across different habitats.

 Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): Barking deer prefer certain habitats for foraging over

others.

b. Type of Test

The Chi-square goodness-of-fit test is appropriate because we are comparing observed habitat

use with expected proportions based on area distribution (Diez et al., 2019).

c. Assumptions and Conditions

 Independence: Each foraging site is independent.

 Expected Counts: All expected counts are greater than 5.

 Random Sampling: Sites were randomly selected.

Thus, all conditions for the Chi-square test are satisfied.


3

d. Hypothesis Test

Habitat Observed (O) % of Area Expected (E) (O - E)² / E

Woods 6 4.8% 25.44 14.88

Cultivated Grassplot 18 14.7% 77.91 45.37

Deciduous Forests 71 39.6% 209.88 95.51

Other 435 40.9% 216.77 218.92

Total 530 530 374.68

Chi-Square Statistic Calculation:

χ² = ∑ ((Oᵢ - Eᵢ)² / Eᵢ) = 374.68

Degrees of Freedom:

df = k - 1 = 4 - 1 = 3

Conclusion:

Since the p-value < 0.001 is less than the 5% significance level, we reject the null hypothesis.

Therefore, barking deer show a preference for certain habitats.


4

Part 2:

a. Actual Number of Visitors

Position Download (%) Download (n) Download (%) No Download (n)

Position1 16.0% 80 20.9% 105

Position2 14.8% 74 21.2% 106

Position3 11.9% 60 15.2% 76

Total 501

b. Hypothesis Test

 Null Hypothesis (H₀): Groups were randomly assigned; no imbalance exists.

 Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): There is an imbalance among the experimental groups.

Conditions:

 Individuals were randomly assigned.

 Observations are independent.

 Expected counts are greater than 5.

Chi-Square Statistic Calculation:

Calculate expected counts based on the proportions of downloads:

 Total downloads = 80 + 74 + 60 = 214

 Total no downloads = 105 + 106 + 76 = 287


5

Expected Counts for Downloads:

Position 1:
(214 / 501) × 167 ≈ 70.56

Position 2:
(214 / 501) × 167 ≈ 70.56

Position 3:
(214 / 501) × 167 ≈ 70.56

Expected Counts for No Downloads:

Position 1:
(287 / 501) × 167 ≈ 96.44

Position 2:
(287 / 501) × 167 ≈ 96.44

Position 3:
(287 / 501) × 167 ≈ 96.44

Position Download (%) Download (n) Download (%)

Position1 16.0% 80 20.9%

Position2 14.8% 74 21.2%

Position3 11.9% 60 15.2%


6

Total for Downloads:

χ² = 1.073 + 0.207 + 1.413 = 2.693

Degrees of Freedom:

df = (3 - 1) × (2 - 1) = 2

Conclusion:

Given the p-value = 0.01215, which is less than 5%, we reject the null hypothesis. Thus, there

is statistical evidence suggesting a slight imbalance among the experimental groups.

Word Count: 422


7

Reference

Diez, D. M., Barr, C. D., & Çetinkaya-Rundel, M. (2019). OpenIntro Statistics (4th ed.).

OpenIntro. https://www.openintro.org/book/os/

You might also like