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 12, 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

A hat contains slips of paper numbered 1 through 6. You draw two slips of paper at random from the hat,without replacing the first slip into the hat.(a) (5 points) Write out the sample space S for this experiment.(b) (5 points) Express the event E : {the sum of the numbers on the slips of paper is 4} as a subset of S.(c) (5 points) Find P(E)(d) (5 points) Let F = {the larger minus the smaller number is 0}. What is P(F )?(e) (5 points) Are E and F disjoint? Why or why not?(f) (5 points) Find P(E ∪ F )

In addition to the in-school milk supplement program, the nurse would like to increase the use of daily vitamin supplements for the children by visiting homes and educating about the merits of vitamins. She believes that currently, about 50% of families with school-age children give the children a daily megavitamin. She would like to increase this to 70%. She plans a two-group study, where one group serves as a control and the other group receives her visits. How many families should she expect to visit to have 80% power of detecting this difference? Assume that drop-out rate is 5%.

A recent survey of 400 americans asked whether or not parents do too much for their young adult children. The results of the survey are shown in the data file. a) Construct the frequency and relative frequency distributions. How many respondents felt that parents do too much for their adult children? What proportion of respondents felt that parents do too little for their adult children? b) Construct a pie chart. Summarize the findings

Answer 2

Question

Chapter 12, 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 12, 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 12, 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 12, 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 12, 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 12, 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”.