Explain the reason for the study to be an observational study. Check whether it is possible to conclude that steroids caused an increase in homeruns.

Question

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

To determine

Explain the reason for the study to be an observational study.

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

Expert Solution & Answer

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

Could you please answer this question using excel. For 1a) I got 84.75 and for part 1b) I got 85.33 and was wondering if you could check if my answers were correct. Thanks

What is one sample T-test? Give an example of business application of this test? What is Two-Sample T-Test. Give an example of business application of this test? .What is paired T-test. Give an example of business application of this test? What is one way ANOVA test. Give an example of business application of this test? 1. One Sample T-Test: Determine whether the average satisfaction rating of customers for a product is significantly different from a hypothetical mean of 75. (Hints: The null can be about maintaining status-quo or no difference; If your alternative hypothesis is non-directional (e.g., μ≠75), you should use the two-tailed p-value from excel file to make a decision about rejecting or not rejecting null. If alternative is directional (e.g., μ < 75), you should use the lower-tailed p-value. For alternative hypothesis μ > 75, you should use the upper-tailed p-value.) H0 = H1= Conclusion: The p value from one sample t-test is _______. Since the two-tailed p-value…

Using the accompanying Accounting Professionals data to answer the following questions. a. Find and interpret a 90% confidence interval for the mean years of service. b. Find and interpret a 90% confidence interval for the proportion of employees who have a graduate degree. view the Accounting Professionals data. Employee Years of Service Graduate Degree?1 26 Y2 8 N3 10 N4 6 N5 23 N6 5 N7 8 Y8 5 N9 26 N10 14 Y11 10 N12 8 Y13 7 Y14 27 N15 16 Y16 17 N17 21 N18 9 Y19 9 N20 9 N Question content area bottom Part 1 a. A 90% confidence interval for the mean years of service is (Use ascending order. Round to two decimal places as needed.)

Answer 2

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

To determine

Explain the reason for the study to be an observational study.

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

Expert Solution & Answer

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

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

To determine

Explain the reason for the study to be an observational study.

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

Expert Solution & Answer

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

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

To determine

Explain the reason for the study to be an observational study.

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

Expert Solution & Answer

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

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

To determine

Explain the reason for the study to be an observational study.

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

Expert Solution & Answer

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 6

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

To determine

Explain the reason for the study to be an observational study.

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

Expert Solution & Answer

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 7

Chapter 11, Problem 1E

To determine

Explain 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 8

Expert Solution & Answer

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 9

Expert Solution & Answer

Answer 10

Expert Solution & Answer

Answer 11

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”.