MARJORIE T.

MIRAFUENTES

TASK 1

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between age and BMI.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between age and BMI.

Variables Pearson “r” Interpretation p-value Interpretation

Age and Body .765 Strong Linear .006 With

Mass Index Relationship Significant
Relationship
Scale: 0 – ± 0.29 = No Linear Relationship *N = 11
± 0.30 – ± 0.49 = Weak Linear Relationship
± 0.50 – ± 0.69 = Moderate Linear Relationship
± 0.70 – ± 0.99 = Strong Linear Relationship
±1 = Perfect Linear Relationship

The results reveal a strong positive correlation between age and body mass index (BMI), with a
Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.765. This indicates that higher age is associated with higher
BMI, while lower age corresponds to lower BMI. Additionally, a significant relationship
between the two variables was found (p-value < 0.05), leading to the rejection of the null
hypothesis and acceptance of the alternative hypothesis that a significant relationship exists
between age and BMI.

TASK 2

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant relationship between alcohol consumption and death
rate from liver disease.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant relationship between alcohol consumption and death
rate from liver disease.

Variables Pearson “r” Interpretation p-value Interpretation

Alcohol .939 Strong Linear <.001 With

Consumption and Relationship Significant
Death Rate from Relationship
Liver Disease
Scale: 0 – ± 0.29 = No Linear Relationship *N = 15
± 0.30 – ± 0.49 = Weak Linear Relationship
± 0.50 – ± 0.69 = Moderate Linear Relationship
± 0.70 – ± 0.99 = Strong Linear Relationship
±1 = Perfect Linear Relationship

The table shows a strong positive correlation between alcohol consumption and liver
disease death rates (Pearson r = 0.939), indicating that higher alcohol consumption is associated
with higher liver disease death rates. The significant p-value (< 0.01) supports the hypothesis of
a meaningful relationship between these variables. Alcoholic liver disease, a major cause of
alcohol-related mortality, often progresses from fatty liver to cirrhosis in 10-15% of heavy
drinkers. The risk of cirrhosis is closely linked to the amount and duration of drinking, with
higher consumption leading to higher mortality rates.
 TASK 3

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference on the effects of an experimental treatment

before and after the application.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference on the effects of an experimental

treatment before and after the application.

Variables Mean SD t – value df p – value Remarks

Before the Treatment 3.40 0.34 5.639 29 <.001 With

After the Treatment 3.72 0.16 Significant
Difference

The table presents results comparing the experimental treatment before and after its
application. The findings indicate a significant difference between the pre-treatment and post-
treatment conditions. This leads to the rejection of the null hypothesis and supports the claim that
the experimental treatment has a significant effect before and after its application.

TASK 4

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference on the effects of an experimental treatment

and the control group in the heart rate in beats per minute.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference on the effects of an experimental

treatment and the control group in the heart rate in beats per minute.

Variables Mean SD t – value df p – value Remarks

Experimental Group 107.39 2.15 34.760 34 <.001 With

Control Group 86.33 1.41 Significant
Difference

The table indicates a positive difference between the control group and the experimental
group, with a p-value less than 0.001. The experimental group has a mean heart rate of 107.39
beats per minute, compared to 86.33 beats per minute in the control group. Additionally, the
control group shows less variability, with a standard deviation of 1.41, while the experimental
group has a standard deviation of 2.15. We reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative
hypothesis, which states that there is a significant difference in heart rate effects between the
experimental treatment and the control group.

TASK 5

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference on the petal length of setosa and virginica
flowers.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference on the petal length of setosa and virginica
flowers.
 Variables Mean SD t – value df p – value Remarks

Virginica flower 5.54 0.57 33.719 48 <.001 With

1.46 0.21 Significant
Setosa flower
Difference

Using an Independent Samples t-test, the table shows a significant difference in petal
length between setosa and virginica flowers. The results (t-value = 33.719; p-value < 0.001)
indicate that the petal length of virginica flowers is significantly greater than that of setosa
flowers.

TASK 6

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the three herbal teas to cure cough.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference between the three herbal teas to cure
cough.

Source of Sum of Mean

Df F-ratio P-value
Variation Squares Square

Between Groups 1.267 2 0.633 0.170 0.845

Within Groups 100.600 27 3.726

Total 101.867 29

*Significant at the 0.05 level

Using One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at a 0.05 significance level, the results
(f-ratio = 0.17 and p-value = 0.845) indicate that there is no significant difference among the
three herbal teas in their effectiveness for curing cough. This suggests that the three herbal teas
have an equal level of efficacy in treating cough.

TASK 7

Null Hypothesis: There is no significant difference on the effectiveness of the three fertilizers
based on the yield.

Alternative Hypothesis: There is significant difference on the effectiveness of the three fertilizers
based on the yield.

Source of Sum of Mean

Df F-ratio P-value
Variation Squares Square

Between Groups 6.068 2 3.034 7.863 <0.001

Within Groups 35.886 93 0.386

Total 41.954 99
Using One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at a 0.05 significance level, the results (f-ratio
= 7.863 and p-value < 0.001) indicate a significant difference in the effectiveness of the three
fertilizers on yield. This suggests that fertilizer number three significantly outperforms fertilizers
one and two.