Steroids The 1990s and early 2000s could be considered the steroids era in Major League Baseball, as many players have admitted to using the drug to increase performance on the field. If a sports writer wanted to compare home run totals from the steroids era to an earlier decade, say the 1960s, explain why this would be an observational study. Could the writer conclude that it was the steroids that caused the increase in home runs? Why or why not?

Question

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Answer 1

Textbook Question

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

Steroids The 1990s and early 2000s could be considered the steroids era in Major League Baseball, as many players have admitted to using the drug to increase performance on the field. If a sports writer wanted to compare home run totals from the steroids era to an earlier decade, say the 1960s, explain why this would be an observational study. Could the writer conclude that it was the steroids that caused the increase in home runs? Why or why not?

Expert Solution & Answer

To determine

The reason for the study to be an observational study.

Check whether it is possible to conclude that steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Answer to Problem 1E

The given study is a retrospective observational study.

No, it is not possible to conclude that the steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Explanation of Solution

Given info:

A researcher’s wish is to examine the effect of steroids in major league baseball; in general, it is known that most of the players take steroids to increase the performance in the field. For this, the sports writer compares the homeruns and steroids intake from the 1960’s.

Justification:

Observational study:

An observational study measures the values of a variable without influencing the values of response variables and explanatory variables. Thus, in an observational study, researchers can observe the behaviors of the individuals without influencing the outcome of that study.

Here, the researcher ask the individual players whether they take steroids or not and observes their homerun totals. The researchers do not influence the individuals to take steroids but merely observe.

Hence, this is an observational study.

Here, there is a relationship between steroids and homerun totals.

Causation:

If one event is the result of the occurrence of other event, then the variables of the two events are said to be under causation. In other words, it can be said that a causal relationship exists between the two variables.

Even though there is an association between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”, the association between the two variables does not infer that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in other variables.

Moreover, the most important thing is that correlation between the two variables does not substantiate the causation.

Lurking variable:

The lurking variable is a type of extraneous variable which is not accounted for under the study. However, it may affect response variables or explanatory variables.

There is a chance for the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals” to not have direct association. The association exists through the lurking variable.

In general case, there is a possibility for the existence of a lurking variable which will be associated with both the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Therefore, the steroids do not cause homeruns.

Thus, there is no causation between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Students have asked these similar questions

A marketing professor has surveyed the students at her university to better understand attitudes towards PPT usage for higher education. To be able to make inferences to the entire student body, the sample drawn needs to represent the university’s student population on all key characteristics. The table below shows the five key student demographic variables. The professor found the breakdown of the overall student body in the university’s fact book posted online. A non-parametric chi-square test was used to test the sample demographics against the population percentages shown in the table above. Review the output for the five chi-square tests on the following pages and answer the five questions: Based on the chi-square test, which sample variables adequately represent the university’s student population and which ones do not? Support your answer by providing the p-value of the chi-square test and explaining what it means. Using the results from Question 1, make recommendation for…

A retail chain is interested in determining whether a digital video point-of-purchase (POP) display would stimulate higher sales for a brand advertised compared to the standard cardboard point-of-purchase display. To test this, a one-shot static group design experiment was conducted over a four-week period in 100 different stores. Fifty stores were randomly assigned to the control treatment (standard display) and the other 50 stores were randomly assigned to the experimental treatment (digital display). Compare the sales of the control group (standard POP) to the experimental group (digital POP). What were the average sales for the standard POP display (control group)? What were the sales for the digital display (experimental group)? What is the (mean) difference in sales between the experimental group and control group? List the null hypothesis being tested. Do you reject or retain the null hypothesis based on the results of the independent t-test? Was the difference between the…

Answer 2

Textbook Question

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

Steroids The 1990s and early 2000s could be considered the steroids era in Major League Baseball, as many players have admitted to using the drug to increase performance on the field. If a sports writer wanted to compare home run totals from the steroids era to an earlier decade, say the 1960s, explain why this would be an observational study. Could the writer conclude that it was the steroids that caused the increase in home runs? Why or why not?

Expert Solution & Answer

To determine

The reason for the study to be an observational study.

Check whether it is possible to conclude that steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Answer to Problem 1E

The given study is a retrospective observational study.

No, it is not possible to conclude that the steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Explanation of Solution

Given info:

A researcher’s wish is to examine the effect of steroids in major league baseball; in general, it is known that most of the players take steroids to increase the performance in the field. For this, the sports writer compares the homeruns and steroids intake from the 1960’s.

Justification:

Observational study:

An observational study measures the values of a variable without influencing the values of response variables and explanatory variables. Thus, in an observational study, researchers can observe the behaviors of the individuals without influencing the outcome of that study.

Here, the researcher ask the individual players whether they take steroids or not and observes their homerun totals. The researchers do not influence the individuals to take steroids but merely observe.

Hence, this is an observational study.

Here, there is a relationship between steroids and homerun totals.

Causation:

If one event is the result of the occurrence of other event, then the variables of the two events are said to be under causation. In other words, it can be said that a causal relationship exists between the two variables.

Even though there is an association between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”, the association between the two variables does not infer that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in other variables.

Moreover, the most important thing is that correlation between the two variables does not substantiate the causation.

Lurking variable:

The lurking variable is a type of extraneous variable which is not accounted for under the study. However, it may affect response variables or explanatory variables.

There is a chance for the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals” to not have direct association. The association exists through the lurking variable.

In general case, there is a possibility for the existence of a lurking variable which will be associated with both the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Therefore, the steroids do not cause homeruns.

Thus, there is no causation between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 3

Textbook Question

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

Steroids The 1990s and early 2000s could be considered the steroids era in Major League Baseball, as many players have admitted to using the drug to increase performance on the field. If a sports writer wanted to compare home run totals from the steroids era to an earlier decade, say the 1960s, explain why this would be an observational study. Could the writer conclude that it was the steroids that caused the increase in home runs? Why or why not?

Expert Solution & Answer

To determine

The reason for the study to be an observational study.

Check whether it is possible to conclude that steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Answer to Problem 1E

The given study is a retrospective observational study.

No, it is not possible to conclude that the steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Explanation of Solution

Given info:

A researcher’s wish is to examine the effect of steroids in major league baseball; in general, it is known that most of the players take steroids to increase the performance in the field. For this, the sports writer compares the homeruns and steroids intake from the 1960’s.

Justification:

Observational study:

An observational study measures the values of a variable without influencing the values of response variables and explanatory variables. Thus, in an observational study, researchers can observe the behaviors of the individuals without influencing the outcome of that study.

Here, the researcher ask the individual players whether they take steroids or not and observes their homerun totals. The researchers do not influence the individuals to take steroids but merely observe.

Hence, this is an observational study.

Here, there is a relationship between steroids and homerun totals.

Causation:

If one event is the result of the occurrence of other event, then the variables of the two events are said to be under causation. In other words, it can be said that a causal relationship exists between the two variables.

Even though there is an association between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”, the association between the two variables does not infer that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in other variables.

Moreover, the most important thing is that correlation between the two variables does not substantiate the causation.

Lurking variable:

The lurking variable is a type of extraneous variable which is not accounted for under the study. However, it may affect response variables or explanatory variables.

There is a chance for the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals” to not have direct association. The association exists through the lurking variable.

In general case, there is a possibility for the existence of a lurking variable which will be associated with both the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Therefore, the steroids do not cause homeruns.

Thus, there is no causation between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 4

Textbook Question

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

Steroids The 1990s and early 2000s could be considered the steroids era in Major League Baseball, as many players have admitted to using the drug to increase performance on the field. If a sports writer wanted to compare home run totals from the steroids era to an earlier decade, say the 1960s, explain why this would be an observational study. Could the writer conclude that it was the steroids that caused the increase in home runs? Why or why not?

Expert Solution & Answer

To determine

The reason for the study to be an observational study.

Check whether it is possible to conclude that steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Answer to Problem 1E

The given study is a retrospective observational study.

No, it is not possible to conclude that the steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Explanation of Solution

Given info:

A researcher’s wish is to examine the effect of steroids in major league baseball; in general, it is known that most of the players take steroids to increase the performance in the field. For this, the sports writer compares the homeruns and steroids intake from the 1960’s.

Justification:

Observational study:

An observational study measures the values of a variable without influencing the values of response variables and explanatory variables. Thus, in an observational study, researchers can observe the behaviors of the individuals without influencing the outcome of that study.

Here, the researcher ask the individual players whether they take steroids or not and observes their homerun totals. The researchers do not influence the individuals to take steroids but merely observe.

Hence, this is an observational study.

Here, there is a relationship between steroids and homerun totals.

Causation:

If one event is the result of the occurrence of other event, then the variables of the two events are said to be under causation. In other words, it can be said that a causal relationship exists between the two variables.

Even though there is an association between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”, the association between the two variables does not infer that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in other variables.

Moreover, the most important thing is that correlation between the two variables does not substantiate the causation.

Lurking variable:

The lurking variable is a type of extraneous variable which is not accounted for under the study. However, it may affect response variables or explanatory variables.

There is a chance for the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals” to not have direct association. The association exists through the lurking variable.

In general case, there is a possibility for the existence of a lurking variable which will be associated with both the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Therefore, the steroids do not cause homeruns.

Thus, there is no causation between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 5

Textbook Question

Answer 6

Textbook Question

Answer 7

Expert Solution & Answer

To determine

The reason for the study to be an observational study.

Check whether it is possible to conclude that steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Answer to Problem 1E

The given study is a retrospective observational study.

No, it is not possible to conclude that the steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Explanation of Solution

Given info:

A researcher’s wish is to examine the effect of steroids in major league baseball; in general, it is known that most of the players take steroids to increase the performance in the field. For this, the sports writer compares the homeruns and steroids intake from the 1960’s.

Justification:

Observational study:

An observational study measures the values of a variable without influencing the values of response variables and explanatory variables. Thus, in an observational study, researchers can observe the behaviors of the individuals without influencing the outcome of that study.

Here, the researcher ask the individual players whether they take steroids or not and observes their homerun totals. The researchers do not influence the individuals to take steroids but merely observe.

Hence, this is an observational study.

Here, there is a relationship between steroids and homerun totals.

Causation:

If one event is the result of the occurrence of other event, then the variables of the two events are said to be under causation. In other words, it can be said that a causal relationship exists between the two variables.

Even though there is an association between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”, the association between the two variables does not infer that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in other variables.

Moreover, the most important thing is that correlation between the two variables does not substantiate the causation.

Lurking variable:

The lurking variable is a type of extraneous variable which is not accounted for under the study. However, it may affect response variables or explanatory variables.

There is a chance for the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals” to not have direct association. The association exists through the lurking variable.

In general case, there is a possibility for the existence of a lurking variable which will be associated with both the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Therefore, the steroids do not cause homeruns.

Thus, there is no causation between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Answer 8

Expert Solution & Answer

To determine

The reason for the study to be an observational study.

Check whether it is possible to conclude that steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Answer to Problem 1E

The given study is a retrospective observational study.

No, it is not possible to conclude that the steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Explanation of Solution

Given info:

A researcher’s wish is to examine the effect of steroids in major league baseball; in general, it is known that most of the players take steroids to increase the performance in the field. For this, the sports writer compares the homeruns and steroids intake from the 1960’s.

Justification:

Observational study:

An observational study measures the values of a variable without influencing the values of response variables and explanatory variables. Thus, in an observational study, researchers can observe the behaviors of the individuals without influencing the outcome of that study.

Here, the researcher ask the individual players whether they take steroids or not and observes their homerun totals. The researchers do not influence the individuals to take steroids but merely observe.

Hence, this is an observational study.

Here, there is a relationship between steroids and homerun totals.

Causation:

If one event is the result of the occurrence of other event, then the variables of the two events are said to be under causation. In other words, it can be said that a causal relationship exists between the two variables.

Even though there is an association between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”, the association between the two variables does not infer that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in other variables.

Moreover, the most important thing is that correlation between the two variables does not substantiate the causation.

Lurking variable:

The lurking variable is a type of extraneous variable which is not accounted for under the study. However, it may affect response variables or explanatory variables.

There is a chance for the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals” to not have direct association. The association exists through the lurking variable.

In general case, there is a possibility for the existence of a lurking variable which will be associated with both the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Therefore, the steroids do not cause homeruns.

Thus, there is no causation between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Answer 9

Expert Solution & Answer

Answer 10

Expert Solution & Answer

Answer 11

To determine

The reason for the study to be an observational study.

Check whether it is possible to conclude that steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Answer 12

Answer to Problem 1E

The given study is a retrospective observational study.

No, it is not possible to conclude that the steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Answer 13

Explanation of Solution

Given info:

A researcher’s wish is to examine the effect of steroids in major league baseball; in general, it is known that most of the players take steroids to increase the performance in the field. For this, the sports writer compares the homeruns and steroids intake from the 1960’s.

Justification:

Observational study:

An observational study measures the values of a variable without influencing the values of response variables and explanatory variables. Thus, in an observational study, researchers can observe the behaviors of the individuals without influencing the outcome of that study.

Here, the researcher ask the individual players whether they take steroids or not and observes their homerun totals. The researchers do not influence the individuals to take steroids but merely observe.

Hence, this is an observational study.

Here, there is a relationship between steroids and homerun totals.

Causation:

If one event is the result of the occurrence of other event, then the variables of the two events are said to be under causation. In other words, it can be said that a causal relationship exists between the two variables.

Even though there is an association between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”, the association between the two variables does not infer that the change in one variable is the cause of the change in other variables.

Moreover, the most important thing is that correlation between the two variables does not substantiate the causation.

Lurking variable:

The lurking variable is a type of extraneous variable which is not accounted for under the study. However, it may affect response variables or explanatory variables.

There is a chance for the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals” to not have direct association. The association exists through the lurking variable.

In general case, there is a possibility for the existence of a lurking variable which will be associated with both the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Therefore, the steroids do not cause homeruns.

Thus, there is no causation between the variables “steroids” and “homerun totals”.

Answer 14

Ch. 11.3 - At one time, a method called gastric freezing was...Ch. 11.4 - Recall the experiment about gastric freezing, an...Ch. 11 - Steroids The 1990s and early 2000s could be...Ch. 11 - Prob. 2E Ch. 11 - Prob. 3E Ch. 11 - Tomatoes You want to compare the tastiness and...Ch. 11 - Tips II For the experiment described in Exercise...Ch. 11 - Prob. 6E Ch. 11 - Prob. 7E Ch. 11 - Prob. 8E

Videos

Answer to Problem 1E

Explanation of Solution

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Chapter 11 Solutions