Student Solutions Manual Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences NINTH EDITION Jav 1.Devore

Chapter I Overview and Descriptive Statistics Chapter 2 Probability 22 Chapter 3 Discrete Random Variables and Probability 41 Distributions Chapter 4 Continuous Random Variables and Probability 57 Distributions Chapter 5 Joint Probability Distributions and Random Samples 79 Chapter 6 Point Estimation 94 Chapter 7 Statistical Intervals Based on a Single Sample 100 Chapter 8 Tests of Hypotheses Based on a Single Sample 108 Chapter 9 Inferences Based on Two Samples 119 Chapter 10 The Analysis of Variance 135 Chapter I I Multifactor Analysis of Variance 142 Chapter 12 Simple Linear Regression and Correlation 157 Chapter 13 Nonlinear and Multiple Regression 174 Chapter 14 Goodness-of-Fit Tests and Categorical Data Analysis 196 Chapter 15 Distribution-Free Procedures 205 Chapter 16 Quality Control Methods 209 III C 20[6 Cengagc Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.•CHAPTER 1 Section 1.1 1. a. Los Angeles Times, Oberlin Tribune, Gainesville Sun, Washington Post b. Duke Energy, Clorox, Seagate, Neiman Marcus c. Vince Correa, Catherine Miller, Michael Cutler, Ken Lee d. 2.97, 3.56, 2.20, 2.97 3. a. How likely is it that more than half of the sampled computers will need or have needed warranty service? What is the expected number among the 100 that need warranty service? How likely is it that the number needing warranty service will exceed the expected number by more than 1O? b. Suppose that 15 of the 100 sampled needed warranty service. How confident can we be that the proportion of all such computers needing warranty service is between .08 and .22? Does the sample provide compelling evidence for concluding that more than 10% of all such computers need warranty service? 5. a. No. All students taking a large statistics course who participate in an SI program of this sort. b. The advantage to randomly allocating students to the two groups is that the two groups should then be fairly comparable before the study. If the two groups perform differently in the class, we might attribute this to the treatments (SI and control). If it were left to students to choose, stronger or more dedicated students might gravitate toward SI, confounding the results.