Ho: The service satisfaction of costumers by store is independent.

Ha: The service satisfaction of costumers by store is independent.

: 0.05
Test Statistics: Chi- Squared

. Otherwise, fail to

Decision rule: Reject Ho if the value of computed p-value is

reject Ho.

Store * Service satisfaction Crosstabulation

Count
Service satisfaction

Store

Strongly

Somewhat

Negative

Negative

Neutral

Total
Somewhat

Strongly Positive

Positive

Store 1

25

20

38

30

33

146

Store 2

26

30

34

27

19

136

Store 3

15

20

41

33

29

138

Store 4

27

35

44

22

34

162

93

105

157

112

115

582

Total

Chi-Square Tests
Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2sided)

16.293a

12

.178

17.012

12

.149

Linear-by-Linear Association

.084

.772

N of Valid Cases

582

Pearson Chi-Square
Likelihood Ratio

a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 21.73.

Decision: Since the computed p-value is

, therefore we fail to reject Ho.

Conclusion: Using 95% confidence interval, the service satisfaction of costumers by

store is independent.

Ho: There is no significant relationship from sales of car in a certain company from
its fuel efficiency.
Ha: There is significant relationship from sales of car in a certain company from its
fuel efficiency.

 : 0.05
Test Statistics: Correlation
Decision rule: Reject Ho if the value of computed p-value

. Otherwise, fail to

reject Ho.

Correlations
Sales in

Fuel efficiency

thousands
Pearson Correlation
Sales in thousands

Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation

Fuel efficiency

-.017
.837

157

154

-.017

Sig. (2-tailed)

.837

154

154

Decision: Since the computed p-value , therefore we fail to reject Ho.

Conclusion: Using 95% confidence interval, there is no significant relationship from
sales of car in a certain company from its fuel efficiency.

Ho: There is no linear association between the sales of the car in a certain company
from its fuel capacity.

Ha: There is linear association between the sales of the car in a certain company
from its fuel capacity.

: 0.05
Test Statistics: Regression

. Otherwise, fail to

Decision rule: Reject Ho if the value of computed p-value

reject Ho.

Model Summary
Model

.087a

R Square

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.007

.001

68.212865

a. Predictors: (Constant), Fuel capacity

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

5406.899

5406.899

Residual

716561.220

154

4652.995

Total

721968.118

155

Sig.

1.162

.283b

a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands

b. Predictors: (Constant), Fuel capacity

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized

Sig.

Coefficients
B
1

(Constant)
Fuel capacity

Std. Error

25.724

25.881

1.519

1.409

Beta

.087

.994

.322

1.078

.283

a. Dependent Variable: Sales in thousands

Decision: Since the computed p-value

, therefore we fail to reject Ho.

Conclusion: Using 95% confidence interval, there is no linear association between

the sales of the car in a certain company from its fuel capacity.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard and new
promotional spent during promotional period.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard and new
promotional spent during promotional period.

: 0.05
Test Statistics: T-test
Decision rule: Reject Ho if the value of computed p-value is

. Otherwise, fail to

reject Ho.

Group Statistics
Type of mail insert received

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

$ spent during promotional

Standard

250

1566.3890

346.67305

21.92553

period

New Promotion

250

1637.5000

356.70317

22.55989

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for

t-test for Equality of Means

Equality of Variances
F

Sig.

df

Sig. (2-

Mean

Std. Error

95% Confidence

tailed)

Difference

Difference

Interval of the
Difference
Lower

Equal variances
$ spent during

assumed

promotional period

Equal variances

1.190

.276

not assumed

Decision: Since the computed p-value

-2.260

-2.260

498
497.59
5

.024

-71.11095

31.45914

.024

-71.11095

31.45914

Upper
-

132.91995
132.92007

, therefore we reject Ho.

Conclusion: Using 95% confidence interval, there is there is significant difference

between the means of standard and new promotional spent during promotional
period.

-9.30196

-9.30183

Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of triglyceride and its final
triglyceride.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of triglyceride and its final
triglyceride.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of weight and its final
weight.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of weight and its final weight.

: 0.05
Test Statistics: T-test

. Otherwise, fail to

Decision rule: Reject Ho if the value of computed p-value is

reject Ho.

Paired Samples Statistics

Mean
Pair 1

Pair 2

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Triglyceride

138.44

16

29.040

7.260

Final triglyceride

124.38

16

29.412

7.353

Weight

198.38

16

33.472

8.368

Final weight

190.31

16

33.508

8.377

Paired Samples Test

Paired Differences
Mean

Std.

Std. Error

99% Confidence

Deviation

Mean

Interval of the Difference

Lower

Pair

Triglyceride - Final

triglyceride

Pair

Weight - Final

weight

df

Sig. (2tailed)

Upper

14.063

46.875

11.719

-20.469

48.594

1.200

15

.249

8.063

2.886

.722

5.936

10.189

11.175

15

.000

Decision: Since the computed p-value

, therefore we fail to reject Ho of the

pair 1. And we reject Ho of the pair 2.

Conclusion: Using 99% confidence interval, in pair 1, there is no significant
difference between the means of triglyceride and its final triglyceride. And in pair 2,
there is significant difference between the means of weight and its final weight.

Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 1.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 1.
Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 2.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 2.
Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 3.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 3.
Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 4.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 4.
Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 5.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 5.
Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 6.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 6.
Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 7.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 7.
Ho: There is no significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 8.
Ha: There is significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and
disc brake that is produced by machine 8.

: 0.05
Test Statistics: T-test

Decision rule: Reject Ho if the value of computed p-value is

. Otherwise, fail to

reject Ho.

One-Sample Statistics
Machine Number

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Disc Brake Diameter (mm)

16

321.998514

.0111568

.0027892

Disc Brake Diameter (mm)

16

322.014263

.0106913

.0026728

Disc Brake Diameter (mm)

16

321.998283

.0104812

.0026203

Disc Brake Diameter (mm)

16

321.995435

.0069883

.0017471

Disc Brake Diameter (mm)

16

322.004249

.0092022

.0023005

Disc Brake Diameter (mm)

16

322.002452

.0086440

.0021610

Disc Brake Diameter (mm)

16

322.006181

.0093303

.0023326

Disc Brake Diameter (mm)

16

321.996699

.0077085

.0019271

7
8

One-Sample Test
Machine Number

Test Value = 322

t

df

Sig. (2-

Mean

95% Confidence Interval

tailed)

Difference

of the Difference
Lower

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Disc Brake Diameter

(mm)
Disc Brake Diameter
(mm)
Disc Brake Diameter
(mm)
Disc Brake Diameter
(mm)
Disc Brake Diameter
(mm)
Disc Brake Diameter
(mm)
Disc Brake Diameter
(mm)
Disc Brake Diameter
(mm)

Upper

-.533

15

.602

-.0014858

-.007431

.004459

5.336

15

.000

.0142629

.008566

.019960

-.655

15

.522

-.0017174

-.007302

.003868

-2.613

15

.020

-.0045649

-.008289

-.000841

1.847

15

.085

.0042486

-.000655

.009152

1.134

15

.274

.0024516

-.002154

.007058

2.650

15

.018

.0061813

.001210

.011153

-1.713

15

.107

-.0033014

-.007409

.000806

Decision: Since the computed p-value

, therefore we fail to reject Ho of the

machine 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8. And the computed p-value

,we reject Ho of the

machine 2, 4 and 7.
Conclusion: Using 95% confidence interval, in machines 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8, there is no
significant difference between the means of standard disc brake and disc brake that
is produced. And in machines 2, 4 and 7, there is significant difference between the
means of standard disc brake and disc brake that is produced.

Ho: There is no significant difference among the mean of DVD assessment by age
group.
Ha: There is significant difference among the mean of DVD assessment by age
group.

: 0.05
Test Statistics: F-test
Decision rule: Reject Ho if the value of computed p-value is

. Otherwise, fail to

reject Ho.

Descriptives
Total DVD assessment
N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound

Minimum

Maxim

Upper Bound

Under 25

13

28.7492

5.19435

1.44065

25.6103

31.8881

21.64

25-34

10

31.6780

5.83753

1.84599

27.5021

35.8539

22.76

35-44

12

37.0181

7.98639

2.30547

31.9437

42.0924

21.82

45-54

10

39.1184

6.43240

2.03410

34.5169

43.7198

26.05

55-64

28.4473

5.43304

2.21803

22.7457

34.1490

17.67

65 and over

17

28.0028

5.26478

1.27690

25.2959

30.7097

15.73

Total

68

31.9508

7.31999

.88768

30.1789

33.7226

15.73

ANOVA
Total DVD assessment
Sum of Squares

df

Mean Square

Between Groups

1294.481

258.896

Within Groups

2295.532

62

37.025

Total

3590.013

67

F
6.993

Sig.
.000

Decision: Since the computed p-value , therefore we reject Ho.

Conclusion: Using 95% confidence interval, there is significant difference among the
means of DVD assessment by age group.