Attached Is The Work That I Have Completed Already Please St

Attached Is The Work That I Have Completed Already Please State You A

Attached is the work that I have completed already. please state you answers in excel and in Word formats. 1. According to the Empirical Rule, what percentage of your sample means should be within 2 standard deviations of the population mean? Again, do your sample means seem to conform to the rule? 2. You used the Empirical Rule because it really gives us more information (and because I asked you to), but truthfully you should have used Chebyshev’s Theorem. Even though Chebyshev’s doesn’t tell us much, why should you have used that one instead?

Paper For Above instruction

The use of the Empirical Rule and Chebyshev’s Theorem are fundamental tools in statistics for understanding the distribution of data, especially when analyzing sample means in relation to a population mean. This paper explores the probabilistic expectations set by the Empirical Rule regarding the spread of sample means within specific standard deviations and discusses the appropriateness of choosing Chebyshev’s Theorem over the Empirical Rule under certain conditions.

According to the Empirical Rule, also known as the 68-95-99.7 rule, approximately 95% of the sample means should fall within two standard deviations of the population mean, assuming the data follows a normal distribution. This rule is rooted in the properties of the normal distribution, which states that roughly 68% of data falls within one standard deviation, 95% within two, and nearly 99.7% within three. When applying this to sample means, it suggests that most means should be close to the true population mean, with very few lying beyond two standard deviations.

In the context of the data at hand, analyzing the sample means reveals whether they conform to this expectation. If the data is approximately normally distributed, then a significant majority of the sample means should indeed lie within two standard deviations of the population mean. For example, if in the sample, about 92-95% of the means fall within this range, we can conclude that the sample conforms well with the Empirical Rule. Conversely, if significantly fewer or more sample means fall within this range, it indicates deviations from normal distribution assumptions or potential issues with data collection. These deviations can be further investigated using graphical methods such as histograms or Q-Q plots for better understanding of the underlying distribution.

While the Empirical Rule provides a convenient and intuitive understanding of normal distributions, it is based on the assumption that the data is indeed normally distributed. In practice, this assumption often does not hold, especially when dealing with small sample sizes or skewed data. Here, Chebyshev’s Theorem becomes a more robust alternative because it does not assume any specific distribution shape. Chebyshev’s inequality states that for any dataset, regardless of its distribution, at least (1 - 1/k²) of the data points will lie within k standard deviations from the mean, where k > 1.

Despite its generic nature, Chebyshev’s Theorem provides a conservative estimate, often resulting in wider intervals, which can be less informative but safer if the data is non-normal. When one needs to make distribution-free inferences, such as when the sample size is small or the distribution is unknown or heavily skewed, Chebyshev’s inequality is preferable because it guarantees bounds on the proportion of data within a given number of standard deviations, regardless of distribution shape. Therefore, in scenarios where the normality assumption is questionable, or the distribution of the data is unknown, Chebyshev’s Theorem should be favored over the Empirical Rule for more reliable inferences.

In conclusion, although the Empirical Rule offers more precise information under the assumption of normality, Chebyshev’s Theorem is crucial when this assumption cannot be verified or is known to be invalid. By choosing the appropriate rule based on the data distribution, statisticians can make more accurate and reliable conclusions, ultimately enhancing the integrity of statistical analysis.

References

• Blitzstein, J., & Hwang, J. (2014). Introduction to Probability. CRC Press.
• Rice, J. A. (2006). Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis. Cengage Learning.
• Pagano, R. R., & Gauvreau, K. (2000). Principles of Biostatistics. Duxbury Press.
• Wasserman, L. (2004). All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference. Springer.
• Devore, J. L. (2011). Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Cengage Learning.
• Hogg, R. V., & Tanis, E. A. (2006). Probability and Statistical Inference. Pearson.
• Rosenthal, J. (2000). Quantifying Variability and Uncertainty in Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(451), 764-769.
• Mooney, C. Z., & Duval, R. D. (1993). Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference. Sage.
• Fisher, R. A. (1922). On the Interpretation of χ2 from Contingency Tables, and the Calculation of P. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 85(1), 87-94.
• Resnick, S. I. (2013). A Probability Path. Birkhäuser Boston.