Statistics 401 Mod 3 Case - Hypothesis Testing 1 - Coursework Example

GM vs NGM Genetically Modified (GM) crops are crops whose DNA have been readjusted through genetic engineering techniques so as to grow in an optimal manner. There is much talk about the products of GM being unhealthy for prolonged human consumption. This is a subject of debate and whether or not it is true is yet to be determined. However, bearing in mind the trouble that has to be undertaken to see to it that a plant grows as a GM and also with the possibility of health hazard at hand; the question that follows is whether or not these GM crops bear a significantly different quantity of yield from the NGM.

If this is not true then there is no need to trouble ourselves with GM. My hypothesis for this study is that yes indeed the GM crops bear a significantly different quantity of yield from the NGM. I am making this positive assumption based on the manner in which GM has been received in various parts of the world. The exercise is done using very rigorous scientific skills and resources. The scientists have an in depth understanding of the genetics of organisms and hence in the event that they go through the trouble of manipulating their DNA, then they are sure to see to it that the yield from such organisms are really huge.

In this case, yes indeed the GM crops would bear a significantly different quantity of yield from the NGM. A type I error is wrong rejection of a correct null hypothesis. It is a false positive. This implies that it leads to a conclusion that a given relationship or thing does exist when in real sense it actually does not exist. In this context, a false positive is concluding that yes indeed the GM crops bear a significantly different quantity of yield from the NGM while in real sense it does not.

This would be detrimental as it shall unnecessarily lead to the government and policy makers to spend more time and resources in trying to set it up in large scale all in vain. This can be avoided by taking repeated tests on the relationship before making the conclusion. In this case, an in depth survey is done on 15 different acres of land which ensures that any single acre that miraculously happened to show a significant difference in yield from that of the GM is not solely relied upon in making the final conclusion.

The test is repeated 15 different times in 15 different acres. A type II error is the lack of undertaking a rejection of a null hypothesis that is false. It is a false negative. It leads to a conclusion that a given relationship or thing does not exist when in real sense it actually does exist. In this context, a false negative is concluding that yes indeed the GM crops do not bear a significantly different quantity of yield from the NGM while in real sense it does. This would be detrimental as it shall unnecessarily lead to the government and policy makers avoid spending more time and resources in trying to set it up in large scale and hence miss out on a lucrative deal.

This can be avoided by taking a large sample and not jumping into conclusions. A whole acre of land is taken as a single sample group of the corn. Considering just a single or two corn plants would be detrimental. This might lead to a situation where the plant is attacked by a localized disease or organism and hence fail to show the presence of a relationship. Acre Number Bushels Of corn 1 92 2 105 3 114 4 129 5 93 6 138 7 101 8 114 9 121 10 94 11 131 12 95 13 114 14 139 15 109 Upper Limit  a=139 Lower Limit  b=92 Most Likely  m=114 Expected Value from the 3PE equation  114.

5 Standard Deviation  7.83 Estimate = (a + 4m + b) / 6 = [139+ (4*114) +92] / 6 = 114.5 SD = (b ? a) / 6 = (139 – 92) / 6 = 7.83 This Estimated value of 114.5 bushels of corn from the NGM corn is less than that of an acre of GM corn which yielded 156 bushels of corn. Given that the standard deviation of this estimate is 7.83, it implies that the estimate can vary between 114.5 + and – 7.83 which is 122.33 and 106.67bushels. These figures show that yes indeed the GM crops bear a significantly different quantity of yield from the NGM.

It perfectly confirms the set hypothesis that I initially stated. REFERENCES Ross, S. M. (2002). A first course in probability. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.