2024

PROJECT : INFERENTIAL
STATISTICS

Chinmaye TL
BATCH: PGPDSBA.O.JULY24.A
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
SERIAL PAGE
NUMBER
PROBLEM STATEMENT NUMBER

1. PROBLEM 1 3

2. PROBLEM 2 8

3. PROBLEM 3 14

4. PROBLEM 4 20

2
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.

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

The problem aims to examine the relationship between foot injuries
and the positions of male football players.
The aim is to compute probabilities for player injuries and positions.
This will allow the physiotherapist to understand injury patterns in the
team and make informed decisions to perhaps prevent injuries from
certain positions.

THE KEY OBJECTIVES ARE

1.Calculate the overall likelihood of injury among football players.
2.Assess the likelihood of a player being in certain positions (such as
forward or winger).
3.Determine the joint probability that a player in a specific position (like
striker) will sustain a foot injury.
4.Calculate conditional probability to determine the chance of a randomly
injured athlete playing in a specific position (such as a striker).

3
 1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player
would suffer an injury?

The formula used to find the probability that a randomly chosen player suffers an injury is

IMPLICATIONS
A high injury rate (61.7%) suggests that injuries are a significant concern for the team.
It’s crucial to implement or enhance injury prevention programs.
This could include better warm-up routines, strength and conditioning programs, and
flexibility exercises.

4
 1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a
winger?

To calculate this probability, the total number of forwards and wingers should be
added and then divided by the total number of players

IMPLICATIONS
With 52% of players being either Forward or Winger, these positions are quite prevalent
on the team.
Understanding that more players are forwards or wingers might explain a larger share of
foot injuries if those positions experience more physical stress or are more prone to
certain types of injury.
Injury prevention strategies should be more targeted towards the demands placed on
forwards and wingers, such as sprinting and cutting movements, which can affect the
feet.

5
 1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player
plays in a striker position and has a foot injury?

Dividing the number of injured strikers by the total number of players will give the
probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and has a foot injury

IMPLICATIONS
19% of the total players being injured Strikers indicates that Strikers are notably affected
by injuries.
Strikers appear to be at higher risk for foot injuries, likely due to the physical demands of
their position, which include quick acceleration, deceleration, sharp turns, and frequent
kicking.
Strikers, due to their high-intensity playing style, should have personalized load
management plans to monitor the strain on their feet during training and matches and
Regular check-ins to assess pain levels or early signs of injury.

6
 1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured
player is a striker?

Dividing the number of injured strikers by the total number of injured players will give the
probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker

IMPLICATIONS
31% of injured players are Strikers implies that Strikers, although they make up a smaller
proportion of the team (compared to other positions), have a significant share of the
injuries.
Strikers making up 31% of the injured group suggest that this position may be more
injury-prone compared to others, likely due to the physical demands of their role.
Strikers are essential to the team’s offensive strategy, so managing their health is critical
for performance.
Given that a large portion of injured players are strikers, the physiotherapist may need to
design position-specific rehab programs. Strikers need to regain explosive strength,
balance, and coordination to return to peak form.

7
PROBLEM 2

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

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

The objective of this problem is to analyze the distribution of the

breaking strength of gunny bags used for packaging cement, by
calculating the proportions of bags falling under different breaking
strength ranges.
This will help the cement company's quality team understand potential
issues related to wastage or pilferage within the supply chain.

THE KEY OBJECTIVES ARE

Quality Control Analysis: Determine the proportion of gunny bags that fail to meet
specific strength thresholds, helping to identify weaknesses in the packaging material.
Supply Chain Efficiency: Understand the potential for wastage or pilferage based on
the strength of the gunny bags, which can affect the integrity of the packaging and
lead to material loss.
Risk Management: Identify the percentage of bags that could fail under various
strength conditions, allowing the company to take preventive measures to reduce
product damage.
Performance Benchmarking: Compare the performance of gunny bags against the
expected standard (mean breaking strength of 5 kg/cm²), ensuring consistency in
packaging quality.
8
 METHODOLOGY

1. Data Distribution Assumption: The breaking strength of gunny bags follows a

normal distribution with a
Mean (μ\muμ) of 5 kg/sq cm
Standard deviation (σ\sigmaσ) of 1.5 kg/sq cm.

2. Z-Score Calculation: To determine the proportion of gunny bags that fall within
specified breaking strength thresholds, z-scores are computed using the formula

This calculation converts the breaking strength values into standard normal variables,
which allows the use of cumulative distribution functions (CDF).

3. Proportion Calculation: For each specified threshold

4. Visualization

9
 2.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking
strength less than 3.17 kg per sq cm?

Calculating the z-score to find P(X<3.17)

From the z-table, the cumulative probability for z=−1.22z is approximately

0.1112.
The value of 0.1112 implies that about 11.12% of the gunny bags have a
breaking strength of less than 3.17 kg per sq cm.

VISUALIZATION

10
 2.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking
strength of at least 3.6 kg per sq cm.?

Calculating the z-score to find P(X≥3.6)

X=3.6 (the value we are testing),
μ=5\mu = 5μ=5 (the mean breaking strength),
σ=1.5\sigma = 1.5σ=1.5 (the standard deviation).
Substituting the values

For z=−0.93, the cumulative probability is approximately 0.1762.

Since the total probability for the normal distribution is 1, the proportion of
gunny bags with a breaking strength of at least 3.6 kg per square cm is:

IMPLICATION
The proportion of gunny bags with a breaking strength of at least 3.6 kg per square cm is
82.38%.
This means that approximately 82.38% of the gunny bags have a strength greater than or
equal to 3.6 kg per sq cm.

VISUALIZATION

11
 2.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking
strength between 5 and 5.5 kg per sq cm.?

Calculating the z-score to find P(5≤X≤5.5)

Calculating the cumulative probability

Calculating the probability between these two Z-scores:

IMPLICATION
Approximately 12.93% of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5 kg
per sq cm.

VISUALIZATION

12
 2.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking
strength NOT between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm.?
Mean (μ\muμ) of breaking strength = 5 kg per sq cm
Standard deviation (σ\sigmaσ) = 1.5 kg per sq cm
We need to calculate P(X<3 or X>7.5), which is the complement of P(3≤X≤7.5).
Converting the values to Z-scores

Calculating the cumulative probability

Calculating the probability between these two Z-scores:

The complement of this probability gives us the proportion of gunny bags with
a breaking strength NOT between 3 and 7.5 kg per sq cm:
P(X<3 or X>7.5)=1−0.8607=0.1393

IMPLICATION
Approximately 13.93% of the gunny bags have a breaking strength not between 3 and
7.5 kg per sq cm.

VISUALIZATION

13
PROBLEM 3
Problem 3
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);

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

Zingaro Stone Printing specializes in printing on polished or unpolished

stones. The stones need a Brinell hardness index of at least 150 for
optimal printing. The company received a batch of both polished and
unpolished stones and has raised the following questions:

1. Are the unpolished stones unsuitable for printing (i.e., is their

hardness less than 150)?
2. Is there a significant difference in the mean hardness between
polished and unpolished stones?

14
 METHODOLOGY

1. Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA)

1.1 Summary Statistics:

The average hardness for unpolished stones is slightly above 150, while
polished stones have a mean of approximately 145.
The standard deviation is higher for unpolished stones, indicating greater
variability in their hardness.

1.2 Data Visualization

The histogram shows that most unpolished stones have hardness values slightly
above 150, while polished stones have a tighter distribution around 145.

15
 BOXPLOT

Both distributions exhibit some variation, but there are no extreme outliers. Unpolished
stones show a wider range of hardness values compared to polished stones.

1.3 Correlation Analysis:

The correlation between unpolished and polished stone hardness is 0.136, which
suggests a weak positive relationship. This means that the hardness of one type does
not strongly predict the hardness of the other.

2. Statistical Analysis
2.1 One-Sample t-Test for Unpolished Stones:
To determine if the unpolished stones are unsuitable for printing (mean hardness < 150),
a one-sample t-test was conducted with the following hypothesis:
Null Hypothesis (H₀): The mean hardness of unpolished stones is greater than or
equal to 150.
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): The mean hardness of unpolished stones is less than
150.
Results:
t-statistic: -0.343
p-value: 0.366
Since the p-value is greater than the significance level of 0.05, we fail to reject the null
hypothesis. This means there is not enough statistical evidence to conclude that the
unpolished stones are unsuitable for printing.

16
2.2 Two-Sample t-Test (Polished vs Unpolished Stones):
To determine if the mean hardness of polished and unpolished stones differs, we
performed a two-sample t-test with the following hypothesis:
Null Hypothesis (H₀): The mean hardness of polished stones equals the mean
hardness of unpolished stones.
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): The mean hardness of polished stones is different from
the mean hardness of unpolished stones.

Results:
t-statistic: 3.026
p-value: 0.003
Since the p-value is less than the significance level of 0.05, we reject the null
hypothesis. This indicates that the mean hardness of polished and unpolished stones
is significantly different.

3. Conclusion

1. Unpolished Stones Suitability:

Based on the one-sample t-test, there is no significant evidence that the mean
hardness of the unpolished stones is less than 150. Therefore, Zingaro is not
justified in believing that the unpolished stones are unsuitable for printing.

2.Comparison of Hardness Between Polished and Unpolished Stones:

The two-sample t-test shows a significant difference between the mean hardness
of polished and unpolished stones. Polished stones have a lower mean hardness
compared to unpolished stones

Recommendation

Zingaro should consider both types of stones for printing but may need to focus on
ensuring that polished stones meet the necessary hardness requirements for optimal
printing.

17
3.1 Zingaro has reason to believe that the unpolished
stones may not be suitable for printing. Do you think
Zingaro is justified in thinking so?

To determine if Zingaro is justified in thinking that unpolished stones may not

be suitable for printing, a one-sample t-test was performed.
The hypothesis test compared the mean hardness of unpolished stones to
the threshold of 150, which is required for optimal printing. The results
were:
t-statistic: -0.343
p-value: 0.366
Since the p-value is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the null hypothesis,
meaning there is no significant evidence that the unpolished stones have a
mean hardness below 150.
Thus, Zingaro is not justified in believing they are unsuitable for
printing.

18
3.2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished
stones the same?

To determine if the mean hardness of polished and unpolished stones is the

same, we conducted a two-sample t-test.
Null Hypothesis (H₀): The mean hardness of polished and unpolished
stones is equal.
Alternative Hypothesis (H₁): The mean hardness of polished and unpolished
stones is different.

Results:
t-statistic: 3.026
p-value: 0.003

Since the p-value is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis, meaning
the mean hardness of polished and unpolished stones is significantly
different.

19
PROBLEM 4
Problem 4
Dental implant data: The hardness of metal implants 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 the dentists who may favor one method above another and may
work better in his/her favorite method. The response is the variable
of interest.

OBJECTIVE OF THE PROBLEM STATEMENT

The objective is to analyze the hardness of dental implants based on
several factors, including:
Dentists: How the hardness varies with different dentists.
Methods: How the implant hardness differs across various implant
methods.
Interaction between Dentists and Methods: Investigate how the
combination of dentist and method impacts implant hardness for each
type of alloy used.
Dentists and Methods Together: Analyze the combined effect of
dentists and methods on the hardness of the implants.
The goal is to understand these relationships and their potential
interactions.

20
 4.1 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on
dentists?

Objective:
The primary objective of this analysis was to determine whether different
dentists have a significant effect on the hardness of implants for Alloy 1.

A two-way ANOVA was used to examine this relationship. Additionally, the

assumptions of the ANOVA model, including normality of residuals and
homogeneity of variances, were checked.

Hypotheses:
Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the hardness of
implants depending on the dentists.
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant difference in the
hardness of implants depending on the dentists.

ANOVA Results for Alloy 1

F-statistic: 7.39
p-value: 0.0094

Given that the p-value is less than 0.05, we reject the null hypothesis. This
suggests that there is a statistically significant difference in the hardness of
implants depending on the dentist for Alloy 1.

21
ANOVA Table Breakdown:
1. Sum of Squares (sum_sq):
Dentist: The variability explained by the "Dentist" factor is 94802.68.
Residual: This is the variability not explained by the "Dentist" factor,
and it’s 551474.57.
2. Degrees of Freedom (df):
Dentist: The degrees of freedom for this factor is 1.0, meaning the
test is comparing two groups (likely two conditions or categories for
"Dentist").
Residual: The residual degrees of freedom is 43.0, representing the
number of observations minus the number of groups being
compared.
3. F-Statistic (F):
The F-value is 7.39, which compares the variance explained by the
"Dentist" factor to the unexplained variance (Residual). A higher F-
value indicates that the factor has a significant effect on the response
variable.
4. p-value (PR(>F)):
The p-value is 0.0094, which is less than the common significance
threshold of 0.05. This means there is strong evidence that the
"Dentist" factor has a statistically significant effect on the response
variable.
CONCLUSION
Since the p-value is 0.0094, we reject the null hypothesis (which typically
states that the "Dentist" factor has no effect). There is significant evidence
that the "Dentist" factor has an effect on the outcome related to Alloy 1.

VISUALIZATION

22
ANOVA Results of Alloy 2

ANOVA Table Breakdown:

Sum of Squares (SS)

Dentist: This represents the variability explained by the "Dentist" factor
(54,513.61).
Residual: This represents the unexplained variability (1,084,489.00).
Total: This is the total variability in the data (1,138,002.61).

Degrees of Freedom (df)

Dentist: The degrees of freedom for the Dentist factor is 1.
Residual: The degrees of freedom for the residual is 43, which is
calculated as the total number of observations minus the number of
groups.
Mean Square (MS):
Dentist MS: Calculated as SS for Dentist / df for Dentist = 54,513.61 / 1 =
54,513.61.
Residual MS: Calculated as SS for Residual / df for Residual =
1,084,489.00 / 43 ≈ 25,207.82.

F-statistic: The F-value of 2.16 is calculated as MS for Dentist / MS for

Residual.

p-value: The p-value of 0.14879 indicates the probability of observing the

data assuming the null hypothesis is true.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that the p-value (0.14879) is greater than 0.05, we fail to reject the
null hypothesis. This suggests that there is no statistically significant
difference in the hardness of implants depending on the dentist for Alloy 2.
23
 4.2 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on
methods?

OBJECTIVE
To determine if there are significant interactions and main effects impacting the hardness
of the implants.
This report presents the results of a two-way ANOVA analysis conducted to assess the
effects of different dentists and methods on the hardness of dental implants made from
two types of alloys.

Methodology
A two-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the following factors:
Dentist: The different dentists involved in the procedure.
Method: The various methods employed for implant placement.

Hypotheses:
Null Hypothesis (H₀): There is no significant difference in the hardness of implants
based on the dentists and methods used. (All group means are equal.)
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant difference in the hardness of
implants based on the dentists and methods used. (At least one group mean is
different.)

Results
Analysis for Alloy 1:
The results of the two-way ANOVA for Alloy 1 are summarized below:

Analysis for Alloy 1

Significant Findings:
The p-values for Dentist (0.002419), Method (0.000878), and the interaction
between Dentist and Method (0.011888) are all below the significance level of 0.05.
This indicates that there are significant differences in implant hardness based on the
dentist, the method used, and their interaction.

24
 Analysis for Alloy 2:
The results of the two-way ANOVA for Alloy 2 are summarized below:

Significant Findings:

The p-value for the Method (0.000086) is significantly less than 0.05, indicating that
the method used significantly affects implant hardness. However, the p-values for
Dentist (0.082695) and the interaction (0.092577) do not meet the significance
threshold, suggesting that there is not enough evidence to conclude that these
factors have a significant impact on hardness for Alloy 2.

VISUALIZATION

CONCLUSIONS
The analysis reveals that for Alloy 1, both the dentist and method, along with their
interaction, significantly influence the hardness of the implants. Conversely, for Alloy
2, only the method has a statistically significant effect, while the influence of the
dentist and the interaction with the method were not statistically significant.

Recommendations
Further investigation is needed to explore the underlying reasons for these
differences, particularly for Alloy 1, where multiple factors were significant.
Additionally, expanding the sample size and including more variables such as
temperature and alloy composition could provide deeper insights into factors
affecting implant hardness. 25
 4.3 What is the interaction effect between the dentist and
method on the hardness of dental implants for each type of
alloy?
Objective
The aim of this analysis was to investigate the interaction effect between the dentist
and method used on the hardness of dental implants for two different alloys (Alloy 1
and Alloy 2). Understanding these interactions can provide insights into the
effectiveness of different methods as performed by various dentists.

Methodology
To analyze the interaction effect, interactive box plots were created using Plotly. These
plots allow for a clear visualization of the hardness of implants as influenced by the
dentist and method. Each box plot represents the distribution of hardness values for
the different methods across dentists, enabling a comprehensive view of the
interaction effects.

Results
1. Alloy 1:
Box Plot Insights: The interactive box plot for Alloy 1 shows variations in
implant hardness among different dentists and methods.
Observations:
Some dentists demonstrate consistently higher hardness levels with
specific methods, suggesting a potential preference or proficiency in using
those methods.
The spread of hardness values indicates variability, which may warrant
further investigation into the underlying factors affecting these differences.
2. Alloy 2:
Box Plot Insights: The box plot for Alloy 2 reveals distinct trends as well.
Observations:
Similar to Alloy 1, certain methods yield higher hardness values when
performed by specific dentists.
The overlap of box plots suggests that while some methods work well
across dentists, there are also noticeable differences that highlight the
importance of individual skill and technique.

Conclusion
The interactive box plots effectively illustrate the interaction effects between dentists
and methods on the hardness of dental implants. The analysis reveals that both the
choice of method and the dentist's proficiency significantly influence the hardness
outcomes for dental implants in both alloys.

26
VISUALIZATION

27
4.3 What is the interaction effect between the dentist and
method on the hardness of dental implants for each type of
alloy?
Objective
This analysis aimed to investigate how the hardness of dental implants varies
depending on the interaction between dentists and methods for two types of alloys
(Alloy 1 and Alloy 2). Understanding these interactions is crucial for optimizing dental
procedures and improving implant outcomes.

Methodology
A two-way ANOVA was conducted separately for each alloy to assess the interaction
effects of dentists and methods on the hardness of implants. The following steps were
undertaken:

1.Hypotheses Formulation:
Null Hypothesis (H₀): There is no significant interaction effect between
dentists and methods on the hardness of implants.
Alternate Hypothesis (Ha): There is a significant interaction effect between
dentists and methods on the hardness of implants.

2.Conducting the Hypothesis Test:

Two-way ANOVA was performed using the ordinary least squares (OLS) method for
both alloys. The interaction term between dentists and methods was analyzed to
determine significance.

Conclusions from the Test Results (Alloy 1 and Alloy 2)

Based on the ANOVA results, analyzing the interaction effect of the dentist and
method on the hardness of dental implants for both Alloy 1 and Alloy 2.

28
Interpretation for Alloy 1:

Dentist: The p-value of 0.0024 is less than 0.05, which means the dentist has a
significant effect on the hardness of implants.

Method: The p-value of 0.0009 is also less than 0.05, indicating that the method
has a significant impact on implant hardness.

Interaction (Dentist): The p-value of 0.0119 is less than 0.05, suggesting that there
is a significant interaction between dentist and method in influencing the hardness
of Alloy 1 implants.

Conclusion for Alloy 1:

There is a significant effect of both dentists and methods on implant hardness.

The interaction between dentist and method is also significant, meaning the
combined influence of dentist and method affects the hardness of the implants in
Alloy 1.

Interpretation for Alloy 2:

Dentist: The p-value of 0.0827 is greater than 0.05, indicating that the dentist does
not have a statistically significant effect on the hardness of implants for Alloy 2.

Method: The p-value of 0.0001 is less than 0.05, meaning the method has a
significant effect on implant hardness.

Interaction (Dentist): The p-value of 0.0926 is greater than 0.05, suggesting that
there is no significant interaction between dentist and method in Alloy 2.

Conclusion for Alloy 2:

Method has a significant impact on the hardness of Alloy 2 implants.
The dentist effect and the interaction between dentist and method are not
significant for Alloy 2.
29
VISUALIZATION

Summary:

Alloy 1: Both the dentist, method, and their interaction have significant effects on
implant hardness.

Alloy 2: Only the method significantly impacts hardness, while the dentist and the
interaction do not.

30