Hypothesis testing

Credit card promotion

Y = Purchases
X = { FWI, SCA }

Normality test for FWI

Ho: Data is normal
Ha: Data is not normal
p = 0.2246
p > alpha (0.05)
p high  Ho fly  fail to reject Ho
Conclusion: Data is assumed to be normal

Normality test for SCA

Ho: Data is normal
Ha: Data is not normal
p = 0.1916
p > alpha (0.05)
p high  Ho fly  fail to reject Ho
Conclusion: Data is assumed to be normal

Are external conditions same? No (the two groups for promotions

are different)

Equality of variance test

Ho: Var(FWI) = Var(SCA)
Ha: Var(FWI) ≠ Var(SCA)
p = 0.653
p high  Ho fly  fail to reject Ho
Conclusion: Var of both grps are assumed to be equal
2 sample t test
Ho: Ave Pur FWI = Ave Pur SCA
Ha: Ave Pur FWI ≠ Ave Pur SCA
p = 0.02423
p < alpha (0.05)
p low  Ho go  Reject Ho
Conclusion: Ave Pur of FWI and SCA are different

2 sample t test
Ho: Ave Pur FWI <= Ave Pur SCA
Ha: Ave Pur FWI > Ave Pur SCA
p = 0.01211
p < alpha (0.05)
p low  Ho go  Reject Ho
Conclusion: Ave Pur of FWI is greater than SCA are different

Contract renewal
Normality test
Ho: All data is normal
Ha: At least one vendor data is not normal
p (Sup A) = 0.8962; p (Sup B) = 0.6484; p (Sup C) = 0.5719
p high  Ho fly  fail to reject Ho
Conclusion: All data are assumed to be normal

Equality of variance test

Ho: All Var are equal
Ha: Var of at least one vendor’s var is different

Var(A) = Var(B) : 0.7464

Var(B) = Var (C) : 0.6347
Var(c) = Var(A) : 0.4247
P high  Ho fly  fail to reject Ho
Conclusion: Var of all supplier is assumed to be same

Final test
Ho: Ave tran times of all vendors is the same
Ha: Ave tran time of at least one vendor is different
p = 0.104
p high  Ho fly  fail to reject Ho
Conclusion: Ave tran times of all vendors may be assumed as the same

Johnnie Talker cool drink

Value to be compared: Prop of likes vs the total

Groups = { adult, children}

Ho: Prop of Adult pur = Prop of Child Pur

Ha: Prop of Adult pur ≠ Prop of Child Pur
p = 0.0001803
p low  Ho go  reject Ho
conclusion: Prop of Adult pur is not equal to child purchases

Ho: Prop of Adult pur <= Prop of Child Pur

Ha: Prop of Adult pur > Prop of Child Pur
p = 0.9999
p high  Ho fly  fail to reject Ho
conclusion: Prop of adult pur is assumed to be less than or equal to the child purchases

Bhaman tech

Comparison of defectives across 4 groups

Ho: Prop of defectives across all centres is the same

H: Prop of defective of at least one centre is different
p = 0.6315
p high  Ho fly  fail to reject Ho
Conclusion: Prop of defectives across all centres are assumed to be same