Michelle McGregor Professor Brenda Santistevan Math 1040-Term Project Narrative April !

" 014 Introduction This term project anal#$es the e%hale capacit# of smo&ers vers's nonsmo&ers in a pop'lation of ()4 people* The goal is to gather data s'pporting the fact that smo&ing might damage #o'r l'ng f'nction and +reathing a+ilit#* ,t is a &no-n fact that smo&ing is a pandemic and ca'ses chronic medical iss'es that can +e fatal* .'r categorical varia+les are smo&ers and nonsmo&ers and -e incl'ded the entire pop'lation in o'r original data set* The t-o sampling methods selected -ere simple random and s#stematic" each totaling a sample si$e of /(* 0or the simple random sample a search engine -as 'tili$ed to o+tain a random n'm+er generator and random*org -or&ed -ell* 1e o+tained o'r /( line n'm+ers and then created data sheets for each method* 0or o'r second method" s#stematic" a die -as rolled to determine -hat pop'lation line -o'ld +e the starting point -ithin o'r data set" -hich -as line )*To determine o'r 2n3 val'e" to select ever# nth sample in the pop'lation" a random n'm+er generator -as 'sed and the n'm+er -as 14* * 1e -o'ld start at line ) and co'nt ever# 14th line totaling a sample si$e of /(* No- that the data sets are complete" -e can create graphs" ma&e comparisons" and comp'te statistical information*

Comparisons- Part 2 The data from o'r t-o sampling methods sho-ed there are more nonsmo&ers than smo&ers in +oth the pop'lation and sample sets* 5ifferences -ere also seen in the pop'lation and sample proportions* The random sample proportion is 0*6 compared to a pop'lation proportion of 0*00)* The s#stematic proportion is 0*0( compared to a pop'lation proportion of 0*00/*These n'm+ers are logical as #o' decrease the pop'lation si$e to a smaller sample" the pro+a+ilit# -ill increase as the# are inversel# related*

Comparisons-Part 3 Simple Random Sample 5 Number Summary Min-47 Q - 5!"75 Med-!2 Q3-!7 Ma#-72 Systematic Sample 5 Number Summary Min-4$ Q -55 Med-! "5 Q3-!4"25 Ma#-7% The 7'antitative varia+le" height" data sho-ed ver# little difference in the mean and standard deviation of the pop'lation compared to the mean and standard deviation of the sample sets* The pop'lation mean is (1*144 -hereas the simple random sample mean is (1*((4 and the s#stematic sample mean is (0*06/" -hich indicates similar res'lts* The standard deviation of the pop'lation is )*404 -ith a simple random sample standard

deviation of (*4 4 and a s#stematic sample standard deviation of )*4!/* Altho'gh the s#stematic sample and pop'lation standard deviation are almost e%actl# the same" the simple random sample data has a slightl# larger standard deviation +'t this -ill not s&eo'r data res'lts or graphs* The consistent shape of +oth the fre7'enc# histograms and +o% plots for +oth the pop'lation and the sample sets is normal or +ell shaped*

Con&idence Inter'als-Part 4 A confidence interval is a range of val'es 'sed to estimate the tr'e val'e of a pop'lation parameter* The categorical varia+le tested -as smo&er vs* nonsmo&er for pop'lation proportion* Both simple random and s#stematic sampling methods -ere 'sed to choose data sets* ()e con&idence inter'als did capture t)e population parameter o& population proportion &or bot) samplin* met)ods o& t)e cate*orical 'ariable* 0or the 7'antitative varia+le of height -e created a confidence interval for pop'lation mean and pop'lation standard deviation* 8tili$ing sampling methods of simple random and s#stematic as -ell* ()e con&idence inter'al did capture t)e population parameters o& bot) population mean and population standard de'iation &or bot) samplin* met)ods o& t)e +uantitati'e 'ariable" 9onfidence interval data as follo-s: Pop'lation Proportion-Simple ;andom Sample- 9ategorical-Smo&er vs* Nonsmo&er 0*411) <p< 0*!))1 Pop'lation Proportion-S#stematic Sample-9ategorical-Smo&er vs* Nonsmo&er -0*01!/<p< 0*1/0/ Pop'lation Standard deviation-Simple ;andom Sample-='antitaive->eight4*!//)<< 4*(664

Pop'lation Standard 5eviation-S#stematic Sample ='antitative->eight4*446!<< (*!//4 Pop'lation Mean-Simple ;andom Sample-='antitative->eight )!?)3<<(/?63 Pop'lation mean-S#stematic Sample-='antitative->eight )6?13<<( 3

,e'el o& Si*ni&icance and Conclusion-Part 5 0or part five of the project" -e formed 4-h#pothesis tests" varia+le of nonsmo&er vs* smo&er and res'lts are as follo-s: Simple Random Sample-Cate*orical-Nonsmo-er 's" Smo-er-.ypot)esis (est &or Population Proportion" /ail to re0ect t)e Null .ypot)esis* The data does s'pport the claim that the pop'lation proportion e7'als 0*004)* Systematic Sample-Cate*orical-Nonsmo-er 's" Smo-er-.ypot)esis (est &or Population Proportion" /ail to re0ect t)e Null .ypot)esis" The data does s'pport the claim that the pop'lation proportion e7'als 0*00/0* Simple Random Sample-Quantitati'e 1ariable-.ei*)t-.ypot)esis (est &or Population Mean* /ail to re0ect t)e Null .ypot)esis" The data does s'pport the claim that the pop'lation mean e7'als (1*144* Systematic Sample-Quantitati'e 1ariable-.ei*)t-.ypot)esis (est &or Population Mean* /ail to re0ect t)e Null .ypot)esis* The data does s'pport the claim that the pop'lation mean e7'als (1*144* ,n concl'sion" o'r ded'ctions are possi+le +eca'se o'r samples met the criteria re7'ited to perform these tests* .'r sample si$e -as great than /0 and incl'ded -ith o'r categorical

for o'r 7'antitative varia+le of height* The

categorical and 7'antitative varia+les* 1e also made 'se of

different e%amples of

sampling methods* , do not feel the T#pe @rror is applica+le to o'r data* A T#pe @rror is one in -hich a tr'e n'll h#pothesis is rejected compared to a T#pe @rror in -hich a fail're to reject a false n'll h#pothesis occ'rs* .'r data s'pports its validit#*