1.) Yes, the samples are from a normally distributed population.
2.) Yes, there is enough evidence that the mean before the medication was given there response are greater than 600 ms ( mean: 640).
3.) Yes, there is enough evidence to prove that before the medication was given the response time was higher (mean:640). After the medication was given the response time is lower (mean: 548).
4.) Ys, there is enough evedince to indicate that variability of auditory response is improved because the standard error went down from 13.31 to 7.79
5.) It is unsually low compare to 99%.
121/125=0.968=97%
according to this value they missed 3% compare to 1%.
6.) No, there is evidence that the response time is lower than the average 386 VS 440.
7.) Yes, there is enough evidence that the medication is improving visual response time.
One sample T hypothesis test:
μ : Mean of variable H_{0} : μ = 440 H_{A} : μ ≠ 440 Hypothesis test results:

Two sample T hypothesis test:
μ_{1} : Mean of AudBefore μ_{2} : Mean of AudAfter μ_{1}  μ_{2} : Difference between two means H_{0} : μ_{1}  μ_{2} = 600 H_{A} : μ_{1}  μ_{2} ≠ 600 (without pooled variances) Hypothesis test results:

Two sample variance hypothesis test:
σ_{1}^{2} : Variance of AudBefore σ_{2}^{2} : Variance of AudAfter σ_{1}^{2}/σ_{2}^{2} : Ratio of two variances H_{0} : σ_{1}^{2}/σ_{2}^{2} = 1 H_{A} : σ_{1}^{2}/σ_{2}^{2} ≠ 1 Hypothesis test results:

One sample T hypothesis test:
μ : Mean of variable H_{0} : μ = 600 H_{A} : μ ≠ 600 Hypothesis test results:

Already a member? Sign in.