(a) (b) (20 points) Comment on Jimmy and Kim's experiment design. Is there anything that could...
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Question:
Transcribed Image Text:
(a) (b) (20 points) Comment on Jimmy and Kim's experiment design. Is there anything that could be improved to help their case? 4 (50 points) Fill in the partial ANOVA table below and compute a p-value for the one-way ANOVA. What hypotheses are being tested, and what is the conclusion? source factor error SS DF MS F total 118.70 (c) (50 points) Differing in their approach to statistical analysis, Jimmy and Kim wrote separate reports with their own conclusions, shown in Appendix 1 and 2, respectively. Whose analysis do you agree with, and why? Make sure to justify your conclusions! (d) (25 points) What advice do you have for Jimmy and Kim at this point? Is there any way to salvage the case? Appendix 1 Analysis by James McGill, Esq. As part of ongoing litigation against Sandpiper Crossing, LLC (referred to hereafter as DEFENDANT), the law office of Wexler-McGill, representing the residents of Sandpiper Crossing (referred to hereafter as CLIENT) conducted an experiment to prove that DEFENDANT has knowingly, systematically, and maliciously overcharged CLIENT, with damages estimated in the millions of dollars. We compared estimates for the population mean charge for a standard service across four comparable retirement facilities across the greater Albuquerque, NM area. Our collected data, summarized in Figure 3, clearly illustrate the malice with which DEFENDANT overcharged CLIENT. To support our case, we conducted pairwise t-tests, which test for statistically significant differences in population means. The tests and our conclusions are shown below. Test 1: Ho PSP PABQGL H PSP PABQCL (1) (2) where sp refers to the population mean service charge at Sandpiper Crossing, and #ABQGL refers to the population mean service charge at ABQ Grand Living. In this test, we reject Ho with p-value = 0.04 < 0.05, and therefore conclude that the service charge at Sandpiper Crossing is significantly different than the charge for the same service at ABQ Grand Living. Test 2: Ho: H: PSP=PPL PSP PL (3) (4) where #sp refers to the population mean service charge at Sandpiper Crossing, and #PL refers to the population mean service charge at Paloma Landing. In this test, we reject Ho with p-value = 0.03 < 0.05, and therefore conclude that the service charge at Sandpiper Crossing is significantly different than the charge for the same service at Paloma Landing. Test 3: Ho: H: PSP=PM PSP #PM (5) (6) where sp refers to the population mean service charge at Sandpiper Crossing, and M refers to the popula- tion mean service charge at The Montebello Landing. In this test, we reject Ho with p-value = 0.02 < 0.05, and therefore conclude that the service charge at Sandpiper Crossing is significantly different than the charge for the same service at The Montebello. As the court can see, in all cases the service charge at Sandpiper Crossing is significantly different than the charge at a comparable retirement facility, and in fact the charge is systematically higher across all tests. This proves that DEFENDANT is guilty of systematically overcharging CLIENT, and we ask the court for the maximum damages allowed by law. Appendix 2 Analysis by Kimberly Wexler, Esq. As part of ongoing litigation against Sandpiper Crossing, LLC (referred to hereafter as DEFENDANT), the law office of Wexler-McGill, representing the residents of Sandpiper Crossing (referred to hereafter CLIENT) conducted an experiment to prove that DEFENDANT has knowingly, systematically, and maliciously overcharged CLIENT, with damages estimated in the millions of dollars. We compared estimates for the population mean charge for a standard service across four comparable retirement facilities across the greater Albuquerque, NM area. Our collected data, summarized in Figure 3, show that although the sample mean service charge is indeed higher at DEFENDANT's facility, they do not necessarily point to wrongdoing. Our analysis begins by conducting a test on the variances of each level of the factor, as our future analysis relies on the equivalence of these variances. Using a two-sided F-test, we find a p-value greater than our pre-determined significance level of 0.05, and therefore fail to reject Ho and conclude that the variances are not significantly different. Knowing that the variances between factors are not significantly different, we proceed to the one-way ANOVA test, with the factor being the retirement facility tested, and the response variable being the charge for the service in units of USD ($). Our collected data exhibit a p-value greater than our pre-determined significance level (0.05)> 0.05. This therefore ends our analysis, and we ask the court to dismiss our case against DEFENDANT. Problem 3 Two junior attorneys named Jimmy and Kim have strong evidence that a retirement facility called Sandpiper Crossing has been systematically overcharging their residents. If their suspicions are true, the management at Sandpiper would be liable for tremendous fines and potentially even prison time. Unfortunately, their strongest evidence was obtained illegally by Jimmy and so it is inadmissible in court. Now, they are scram- bling to find other evidence to support their case. As part of their investigation, they conduct a randomized experiment by sampling the rates charged for a standard service at four different retirement facilities in the greater Albuquerque, NM area. The data collected are shown below in Figure 3. Sample Service charge number 1 ($) Retirement facility 207.56 Paloma Landing 202.96 Paloma Landing 2 3 202.19 Paloma Landing 4 201.16 Paloma Landing 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 202.36 Paloma Landing 207.51 Sandpiper Crossing 207.34 Sandpiper Crossing 206.95 Sandpiper Crossing 204.33 Sandpiper Crossing 207.99 Sandpiper Crossing 203.83 ABQ Grand Living 201.07 ABQ Grand Living 204.15 ABQ Grand Living 204.04 ABQ Grand Living 205.77 ABQ Grand Living 207.99 The Montebello 203.73 The Montebello 18 201.11 The Montebello 19 203.78 The Montebello 20 201.02 The Montebello Figure 3: Data collected for Problem 3. (a) (b) (20 points) Comment on Jimmy and Kim's experiment design. Is there anything that could be improved to help their case? 4 (50 points) Fill in the partial ANOVA table below and compute a p-value for the one-way ANOVA. What hypotheses are being tested, and what is the conclusion? source factor error SS DF MS F total 118.70 (c) (50 points) Differing in their approach to statistical analysis, Jimmy and Kim wrote separate reports with their own conclusions, shown in Appendix 1 and 2, respectively. Whose analysis do you agree with, and why? Make sure to justify your conclusions! (d) (25 points) What advice do you have for Jimmy and Kim at this point? Is there any way to salvage the case? Appendix 1 Analysis by James McGill, Esq. As part of ongoing litigation against Sandpiper Crossing, LLC (referred to hereafter as DEFENDANT), the law office of Wexler-McGill, representing the residents of Sandpiper Crossing (referred to hereafter as CLIENT) conducted an experiment to prove that DEFENDANT has knowingly, systematically, and maliciously overcharged CLIENT, with damages estimated in the millions of dollars. We compared estimates for the population mean charge for a standard service across four comparable retirement facilities across the greater Albuquerque, NM area. Our collected data, summarized in Figure 3, clearly illustrate the malice with which DEFENDANT overcharged CLIENT. To support our case, we conducted pairwise t-tests, which test for statistically significant differences in population means. The tests and our conclusions are shown below. Test 1: Ho PSP PABQGL H PSP PABQCL (1) (2) where sp refers to the population mean service charge at Sandpiper Crossing, and #ABQGL refers to the population mean service charge at ABQ Grand Living. In this test, we reject Ho with p-value = 0.04 < 0.05, and therefore conclude that the service charge at Sandpiper Crossing is significantly different than the charge for the same service at ABQ Grand Living. Test 2: Ho: H: PSP=PPL PSP PL (3) (4) where #sp refers to the population mean service charge at Sandpiper Crossing, and #PL refers to the population mean service charge at Paloma Landing. In this test, we reject Ho with p-value = 0.03 < 0.05, and therefore conclude that the service charge at Sandpiper Crossing is significantly different than the charge for the same service at Paloma Landing. Test 3: Ho: H: PSP=PM PSP #PM (5) (6) where sp refers to the population mean service charge at Sandpiper Crossing, and M refers to the popula- tion mean service charge at The Montebello Landing. In this test, we reject Ho with p-value = 0.02 < 0.05, and therefore conclude that the service charge at Sandpiper Crossing is significantly different than the charge for the same service at The Montebello. As the court can see, in all cases the service charge at Sandpiper Crossing is significantly different than the charge at a comparable retirement facility, and in fact the charge is systematically higher across all tests. This proves that DEFENDANT is guilty of systematically overcharging CLIENT, and we ask the court for the maximum damages allowed by law. Appendix 2 Analysis by Kimberly Wexler, Esq. As part of ongoing litigation against Sandpiper Crossing, LLC (referred to hereafter as DEFENDANT), the law office of Wexler-McGill, representing the residents of Sandpiper Crossing (referred to hereafter CLIENT) conducted an experiment to prove that DEFENDANT has knowingly, systematically, and maliciously overcharged CLIENT, with damages estimated in the millions of dollars. We compared estimates for the population mean charge for a standard service across four comparable retirement facilities across the greater Albuquerque, NM area. Our collected data, summarized in Figure 3, show that although the sample mean service charge is indeed higher at DEFENDANT's facility, they do not necessarily point to wrongdoing. Our analysis begins by conducting a test on the variances of each level of the factor, as our future analysis relies on the equivalence of these variances. Using a two-sided F-test, we find a p-value greater than our pre-determined significance level of 0.05, and therefore fail to reject Ho and conclude that the variances are not significantly different. Knowing that the variances between factors are not significantly different, we proceed to the one-way ANOVA test, with the factor being the retirement facility tested, and the response variable being the charge for the service in units of USD ($). Our collected data exhibit a p-value greater than our pre-determined significance level (0.05)> 0.05. This therefore ends our analysis, and we ask the court to dismiss our case against DEFENDANT. Problem 3 Two junior attorneys named Jimmy and Kim have strong evidence that a retirement facility called Sandpiper Crossing has been systematically overcharging their residents. If their suspicions are true, the management at Sandpiper would be liable for tremendous fines and potentially even prison time. Unfortunately, their strongest evidence was obtained illegally by Jimmy and so it is inadmissible in court. Now, they are scram- bling to find other evidence to support their case. As part of their investigation, they conduct a randomized experiment by sampling the rates charged for a standard service at four different retirement facilities in the greater Albuquerque, NM area. The data collected are shown below in Figure 3. Sample Service charge number 1 ($) Retirement facility 207.56 Paloma Landing 202.96 Paloma Landing 2 3 202.19 Paloma Landing 4 201.16 Paloma Landing 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 202.36 Paloma Landing 207.51 Sandpiper Crossing 207.34 Sandpiper Crossing 206.95 Sandpiper Crossing 204.33 Sandpiper Crossing 207.99 Sandpiper Crossing 203.83 ABQ Grand Living 201.07 ABQ Grand Living 204.15 ABQ Grand Living 204.04 ABQ Grand Living 205.77 ABQ Grand Living 207.99 The Montebello 203.73 The Montebello 18 201.11 The Montebello 19 203.78 The Montebello 20 201.02 The Montebello Figure 3: Data collected for Problem 3.
Expert Answer:
Posted Date:
Students also viewed these mathematics questions
-
Toby dies on 2 March 2021, leaving an estate valued at 400,000. None of the transfers made on death are exempt from IHT. Calculate the IHT due on the estate if the total of the gross chargeable...
-
A plant has an effective capacity of 900 units per day and produces 800 units per day with its product mix; what is its efficiency?
-
What is MySQL?
-
One division in a decentralized company sometimes sells goods or services to another division in the same company. What are the advantages of this practice? the disadvantages?
-
Meals for the Homeless usually experiences seasonality in its cash balances. In December, contributions from donors increase its cash balances, and then these balances are used throughout the...
-
1. Does where you live affect your insurance rate? The mean auto insurance rate for 24 drivers in a large city is $1,857 per car with a standard deviation of $364 while the mean rate for 28 drivers...
-
A Brief History of Labor Legislation - Use the Internet to find out which countries in the world have legal systems that support collective bargaining. What do these countries have in common with the...
-
Changes in prices and wages are too slow to support the new classical assumption of persistent macroeconomic equilibrium.
-
What is the cost to a firm in an oligopoly that fails to take rivals actions into account?
-
What is meant by the term overfishing? What is the fundamental problem associated with overfishing of the oceans? What might lead to underfishing?
-
If the best solution to solving the positive externality problem of education is to provide a subsidy, explain why educational systems in all countries are government entities.
-
Discuss the argument that education should be subsidized because it creates a positive externality.
-
Part C: Unknown pH 1) What color do you see for each sample? Be specific. a. Unknown 1: Club Soda = b. Unknown 2: Alkaline water = C. Unknown 3: Bleach = d. Unknown 4: Acetate Buffer = e. Unknown 5:...
Study smarter with the SolutionInn App