0
$\begingroup$

Question: In one faculty the distribution of the heights of the students is N(180,25) In the second faculty it's N(160,20)

We take some students from both faculties and put them together in a class. There are 2 hypothesis regarding how they are distributed:

$H_0$: $\frac 14$ of them are from faculty I, and $\frac 34$ are from faculty II.

$H_1$: $\frac 14$ of them are in faculty II, and $\frac 34$ are from faculty I.

If we look at a random student- If his height is bigger than 168 we reject $H_0$.

What is the rejection zone?

What I did: To try to formalize it I rephrased this in math terms:

X is a Bernulli RV representing a single random student, s.t. p is the probability of a student to be in faculty I.

Therefore $H_0: p=0.75$

I think the statistic S(X) is the height of a single random student, so I want to find out the prob. under $H_0$ that his height is bigger than 168. I did it this way : $0.75P(\frac {S(X)-180}{25}>\frac {168-180}{25})+0.25 P(\frac{S(X)-160}{20}<\frac{168-160}{20})=0.5994$ (using R) Is this result the alpha used to calculate the rejection zone $C_a$?

(We've been told that $P_{H_0} (S(X)\in C_a)=a$ is how to do a statistic test)

I would love some thorough explanation (maybe some good links too) for this(not only hints) as I feel my understanding of the whole subject is still lacking. Thanks a lot

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The reason why normally one would start with a significance level is in order to find a rejection rule that delivers that significance level.

However, if you begin with a rejection rule, you work out the significance level from the rejection rule that gives.

Your general approach looks okay but you have made a number of errors.

p is the probability of a student to be in faculty I.
Therefore $H_0:p=0.75$

This is wrong already. Look more carefully at your question.

$0.75P(\frac {S(X)-180}{25}>\frac {168-180}{25})+0.25 P(\frac{S(X)-160}{20}<\frac{168-160}{20})=0.5994$

Even after fixing the previous error, this is wrong.

Let S be the height of the student.

$$ \alpha = P(S>168) = P(S>168|F_I)P(F_I) + P(S>168|F_{II})P(F_{II}) \\ =p\,P(S>168|F_I) + (1-p)\,P(S>168|F_{II}) $$

(from the law of total probability)

Both the conditional terms should have their inequality in the same direction:

$$P(S>168|F_i) = P(\frac{S-\mu_i}{\sigma_i}>\frac{168-\mu_i}{\sigma_i}) = P(Z>\frac{168-\mu_i}{\sigma_i})$$

Somehow you flipped one around.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Okay so now I just want to make sure (after fixing these errors) a=0.429? $\endgroup$ – jreing Jan 1 '14 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ and also: so considering that I found the alpha - can I now claim that that $C_a=[p_0+Z_{1-a}\sqrt{ \frac{p_0(1-p_0)} {n} },\infty)= [0.3255,\infty)?$ $\endgroup$ – jreing Jan 1 '14 at 10:57
  • $\begingroup$ It looks to me like you have the right probability; just be careful about the direction of your inequalities when you write them down. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Jan 1 '14 at 11:10
  • $\begingroup$ On your second query: the rejection region is already specified in the question. You might like to reread the second sentence in my answer. Note that your question defined that $C_\alpha$ was in terms of the height, not the probability (which is useful because height is all you observe). $\endgroup$ – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Jan 1 '14 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ Can you please elaborate on that sentence? What I understood from it is that the signif. level (=alpha) can be figured from the rejection rule - and that's what I did and how I really found this alpha. Are you saying that the rejection zone is just $C_a=[168,\infty)$ ? If that's true why do I need the alpha in order to answer the question at all? $\endgroup$ – jreing Jan 1 '14 at 13:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.