Inferential Statistics (IS)

Coded Project Report

Submitted to

By

Pirangi Charan Teja Goud

In partial Fulfillment of

PGP-DSBA
List of Context:
List of Figures: ................................................................................................... 3
List of Equations ................................................................................................ 4
About the Data and Its Dictionary ........................................................................ 5
Introduction....................................................................................................... 6
Problem 1: ......................................................................................................... 6
1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury? 6
1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger? ........................ 6
1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker
position and has a foot injury?.......................................................................... 7
1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker? ..... 7
Problem 2: ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg
per sq cm? ..................................................................................................... 8
2.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per
sq cm.? .......................................................................................................... 8
2.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and
5.5 kg per sq cm.? ........................................................................................... 9
Problem 3: ....................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Earlier experience of Zingaro with this particular client is favorable as the
stone surface was found to be of adequate hardness. However, Zingaro has
reason to believe now that the unpolished stones may not be suitable for printing.
Do you think Zingaro is justified in thinking so? ................................................ 10
3.2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the same?...... 11
Problem 4: ....................................................................................................... 11
4.1 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists? ................ 11
4.2 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on methods? ............... 12
4.3 What is the interaction effect between the dentist and method on the
hardness of dental implants for each type of alloy? ......................................... 13
4.4 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists and methods
together?...................................................................................................... 14
Page2
Conclusion: ..................................................................................................... 15

List of Figures:
Figure 1: Normal Distribution Highlighting P(X < 3.17) for Gunny Bags

Figure 2: Normal Distribution Highlighting P(X ≥ 3.6) for Gunny Bags

Figure 3: Normal Curve Highlighting P(5 < X < 5.5) for Gunny Bags

Figure 4: Normal Curve for Proportion of Gunny Bags NOT Between 3 and 7.5
kg
Figure 5: Interaction Plot for Dentist × Method

(All figure captions appear at the bottom and center of the respective figure.)

Page3
List of Equations
1. Probability of Injury

2. Probability of a Player Being a Forward or Winger

3. Probability of a Striker Being Injured

4. Normal Distribution for Gunny Bags

5. Hypothesis Testing for Stone Hardness

6. Two-Sample T-Test for Hardness of Stones

7. ANOVA Formula for Dental Implant Hardness

8. Interaction Effect Between Dentist and Method

(For details, refer to the equations section in the report.)

Page4
About the Data and Its Dictionary
• Football Injuries Data: Contains player positions and injury
occurrences.
• Gunny Bag Strength Data: Describes the breaking strength of packaging
material.
• Stone Hardness Data: Compares polished and unpolished stone
hardness.
• Dental Implant Data: Includes hardness measures based on implant
methods, metal treatment, alloy type, and dentist preference.

Page5
Introduction

This report provides statistical insights into four distinct business problems: foot
injuries among football players, gunny bag breaking strength, stone hardness for
printing, and dental implant hardness. Using statistical tests, we derive meaningful
conclusions that inform decision-making.

Problem 1:
A physiotherapist with a male football team is interested in studying the
relationship

between foot injuries and the positions at which the players play from the data
collected.

Attacking
Striker Forward midfielder Winger Total
Players
injured 45 56 24 20 145

Players Not
injured 32 38 11 9 90
Total 77 94 35 29 235

1.1 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury?
Solution: Probability that a randomly chosen player would suffer an injury

= Total Number of Players Injured/ Total Number of Players

= 145/235

= 0.62.

1.2 What is the probability that a player is a forward or a winger?

Solution: Probability that a player is a forward or a winger

= (Number of Forwards + Number of Wingers) */ Total Number of Players

Page6
 = (94+29)/235

= 0.52.

1.3 What is the probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position
and has a foot injury?
Solution: Probability that a randomly chosen player plays in a striker position and
has a foot injury

= Number of Injured Strikers/ Total Number of Players

= 45/235

= 0.19.

1.4 What is the probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker?
Solution: Probability that a randomly chosen injured player is a striker

= Number of Injured Strikers/ Total Number of Injured Players

= 0.31.

Problem 2:
The breaking strength of gunny bags used for packaging cement is normally
distributed with a mean of 5 kg per sq. centimeter and a standard deviation of 1.5 kg
per sq .centimeter. The quality team of the cement company wants to know the
following about the packaging material to better understand wastage or pilferage
within the supply chain; Answer the questions below based on the given
information;

(Provide an appropriate visual representation of your answers, without

which marks will be deducted)

Solution: Probability Distribution Function of Breaking Strength of Gunny Bags is

Page7
 given as, X~N (µ = 5, σ = 1.5)

2.1 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength less than 3.17 kg
per sq cm?
P (X < 3.17) = 0.11.

Figure 1: Normal Distribution Highlighting P(X < 3.17) for Gunny Bags

The resulting probability tells us the percentage of gunny bags with a breaking
strength below 3.17 kg/cm². A chart is also provided to visually highlight this
probability on the normal curve.

2.2 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength at least 3.6 kg per
sq cm.? P (X >= 3.6) = 1 - P (X<3.6)

Figure 2: Normal Distribution Highlighting P(X ≥ 3.6) for Gunny Bags

Page8
Since the majority of the probability mass lies above 3.6 kg/cm², most gunny bags
meet or exceed this strength, indicating that the packaging material is generally
strong and reliable.

2.3 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5
kg per sq cm.?
P (5< X <5.5) = P (X<5.5) – P (X<5) = 0.13.

Figure 3: Normal Curve Highlighting P(5 < X < 5.5) for Gunny Bags

The probability of a gunny bag having a breaking strength between 5 and 5.5
kg/cm² is determined using the normal distribution. Since this range is close to the
mean (5 kg/cm²), a moderate proportion of bags fall within this category. This
indicates that many gunny bags meet the expected strength range, ensuring
consistent packaging quality.

2.4 What proportion of the gunny bags have a breaking strength NOT between 3
and 7.5kg per sq cm.?

P (X < 3 and X > 7.5) = P (X<3) + 1 - P (X<7.5) = 0.14.

Page9
 Figure 4: Normal Curve for Proportion of Gunny Bags NOT Between 3
and 7.5 kg
The probability of a gunny bag having a breaking strength outside the
range of 3 to 7.5 kg/cm² is relatively low, as most values lie within this
interval. This suggests that the majority of the bags meet the expected
strength requirements, with only a small fraction being too weak or
excessively strong. Ensuring quality control can help minimize extreme
variations.

Problem 3:
Dataset – Zingaro_Company.csv

Zingaro stone printing is a company that specializes in printing images or patterns

on polished or unpolished stones. However, for the optimum level of printing of the
image the stone surface has to have a Brinell's hardness index of at least 150.
Recently, Zingaro has received a batch of polished and unpolished stones from its
clients. Use the data provided to answer the following (assuming a 5% significance
level);

3.1 Earlier experience of Zingaro with this particular client is favorable as the stone
surface was found to be of adequate hardness. However, Zingaro has reason to
believe now that the unpolished stones may not be suitable for printing. Do you
think Zingaro is justified in thinking so?
Solution: First, hypothesizing for unpolished stones, we have:

Step1: Ho (Null Hypothesis) -> Sample Mean >=150

H1 (Alternate Hypothesis) -> Sample Mean <150

Step2: Given, α = 0.05

Step 3: 1 sample z-test as this is a one-sided sample with sample size is 75>30

Step 4: µ = 150 and n=75.

Also, X̄ unpolished= 134.11, S unpolished = 33.04, X̄ polished= 147.79, S polished =

15.59.

Type of Stone Unpolished Treated and Polished

mean 134.11053 147.7881
Std. dev 33.041804 15.58736
0.9999844 0.890447
P-value 1.555E-05 0.109553
Page10
 Two-tailed t-test 0.0007328
Step 5: p-value for unpolished~0 < 0.05 (i.e. α) and hence Null Hypothesis is
rejected in that case. So, unpolished stones do not have a Brinell's hardness index of
at least 150. Whilst, in case of treated and polished p-value is 0.11 > 0.05 (i.e. α) and
hence Null Hypothesis cannot be rejected in that case. So, treated, and polished
stones have a Brinell's hardness index of at least 150.

CONCLUSION 1: Hence, Zingaro is right in thinking that unpolished stones not

suitable for printing unlike the treated and polished stones which have the right
fitment.

3.2 Is the mean hardness of the polished and unpolished stones the same?
Solution: Hypotheses - Null: mean polished = mean unpolished | Alternate: mean
polished ≠ mean unpolished

Test: Two-tailed t-test, Also, X̄ unpolished= 134.11, S unpolished = 33.04, X̄

polished= 147.79, S polished = 15.59 and n =75.

The p-value of the two-tailed test is 0.0007328 and is significantly less than 0.05 (i.e.
α), so alternate hypothesis prevails.

CONCLUSION 2: Hence, the hardness of polishes and unpolished stones are

significantly different.

Problem 4:
Data set - Dental Hardness Data

Dental implant data: The hardness of metal implant in dental cavities depends on
multiple factors, such as the method of implant, the temperature at which the metal
is treated, the alloy used as well as on the dentists who may favor one method above
another and may work better in his/her favorite method. The response is the
variable of interest.

4.1 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists?

Solution: Hypotheses:

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the mean hardness

of dental implants among different dentists.
• Alternate Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in the mean
hardness of dental implants among different dentists.

Page11
Assumptions of the Hypothesis Test

• Independence: The hardness measurements for each dentist are

independent of each other.
• Normality: The hardness measurements for each dentist follow a normal
distribution.
• Homogeneity of Variance: The variance of hardness measurements is equal
across different dentists.

Hardness by Dentists: We will use ANOVA test to determine if there's a

statistically significant difference in hardness based on the dentist.

ANOVA Table - Dentist:

Source sum_sq df F PR(>F)
Dentist 146547.2 1.0 7.392259 0.00789
Residual 1744548.0 88.0 NaN NaN

Conclusions from the Test Results

If the p-value is less than the chosen significance level (e.g., 0.05), we reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that there is a significant difference in the mean hardness
of dental implants among different dentists. If the p-value is greater than the
significance level, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.

Identifying Pairs with Different Implant Hardness

If the null hypothesis is rejected, post-hoc tests (e.g., Tukey's HSD test) can be
conducted to identify which specific pairs of dentists show significant differences in
implant hardness.

By following these steps, we can analyse the variation in implant hardness based on
dentists and determine if there are significant differences among them

4.2 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on methods?

Solution:

Hypotheses:

• Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in the hardness of

implants depending on the methods.
• Alternate Hypothesis (H1): There is a significant difference in the hardness
of implants depending on the method.

Page12
Assumptions of the Hypothesis Test:

• Independence: The hardness measurements for different methods are

independent of each other.
• Normality: The hardness measurements for each method follow a normal
distribution.
• Equal Variances: The variances of hardness measurements for each method
are equal.

Hardness by Methods:

Similar to dentists, we will use ANOVA test this analysis checks for differences in
hardness based on the method used.

ANOVA Table - Method:

Source sum_sq df F PR(>F)
Method 417333.6 1.0 24.919463 0.000003
Residual 1473762.0 88.0 NaN NaN

Conclusions from the Test Results:

• If the p-value is less than the significance level (e.g., 0.05), reject the null
hypothesis.
• If the p-value is greater than the significance level, fail to reject the null
hypothesis.

Identifying Differences in Implant Hardness:

• If the null hypothesis is rejected, identify which pairs of methods show

significant differences in implant hardness.
• We have to use post-hoc tests (e.g., Tukey's HSD test for equal variances,
Games-Howell test for unequal variances) to compare specific pairs of
methods.

4.3 What is the interaction effect between the dentist and method on the hardness
of dental implants for each type of alloy?
Solution:

Interaction Effect:

This analysis checks if there is an interaction effect between dentist, method, and
alloy on hardness. We have used two-way ANOVA Test.

Page13
 ANOVA Table - Interaction (Dentist * Method * Alloy):
sum_sq df F PR(>F)
C(Dentist) 1.465472e+05 1.0 11.145162 1.268902e-03
C(Method) 4.173336e+05 1.0 31.738925 2.412583e-07
C(Alloy) 1.136521e+05 1.0 8.643432 4.265314e-03
C(Dentist):C(Method) 1.058155e+05 1.0 8.047448 5.739468e-03
C(Dentist):C(Alloy) 2.769089e+03 1.0 0.210594 6.475164e-01
C(Method):C(Alloy) 2.646000e+04 1.0 2.012328 1.598154e-01
C(Dentist):C(Method):C(Alloy) 3.040083e+02 1.0 0.023120 8.795180e-01
Residual 1.078214e+06 82.0 NaN

Figure 5: Figure 5: Interaction Plot for Dentist × Method

4.4 How does the hardness of implants vary depending on dentists and methods
together?
Solution:

Null hypothesis(H0): There is no interaction effect between dentists and methods

on hardness

Alternate hypothesis (Ha): There is an interaction effect between dentists and

methods on hardness

Hardness by Dentists and Methods Together:

This ANOVA checks if there is a combined effect of dentists and methods on

hardness.
sum_sq df F PR(>F)
C(Dentist) 157794.555556 4.0 3.550086 1.045384e-02
Page14
C(Method) 593427.488889 2.0 26.702047 1.750208e-09
C(Dentist):C(Method) 306471.844444 8.0 3.447526 1.969515e-03
Residual 833401.666667 75.0 NaN NaN

Conclusion: The hardness of implants varies significantly based on both dentist

and implantation method, with a strong interaction effect between them. This
means different dentists achieve different results depending on the method they
use. Post-hoc tests identify which dentist-method combinations differ. Even though
some assumptions of ANOVA are violated, the test confirms that both factors
influence hardness. Optimizing method selection for each dentist could improve
implant outcomes.

Conclusion:

This business report presents statistical insights into four distinct areas: football
injuries, gunny bag strength, stone hardness, and dental implant hardness. The
analysis highlights key trends and relationships using probability calculations,
hypothesis testing, and ANOVA models. The findings provide valuable guidance for
decision-making in sports safety, material durability, printing quality, and medical
implant procedures.

Page15