Report - Tuesday, 3 September 2024, 11:59 pm (Week 10) Presentation – Scheduled during Week 11 BUS100 classes
ULO1: Identify and apply appropriate statistical techniques or analytical tools by focusing on the objective of the problem and the data type;
ULO2: Analyse statistical data using appropriate computer software applications such as Excel or SPSS;
ULO3: Summarise and process suitable sample data, make basic statistical inferences and interpret statistical results, which lead to appropriate business interpretations in the context of the problem given.
Length: 2000 words (excluding reference list) (plus/minus 10%).
The report will have the following parts:
numbers inserted at the bottom right.
The assignment should show evidence of research, with references from relevant academic journals. You should have at least two different peer-reviewed academic articles used in this assessment. Do not use Wikipedia as a reference source. Unless it is a generic theory / model, cited publications must be within the past 10 years.
All citations and references must adhere to the APA 7 referencing style.
The submission link allows for multiple attempts, enabling you to check text matching for unintended plagiarism. Based on the text-match report, revise your work as needed. Submit your revised work for course grading.
Assignments with similarity percentages of 30% and above and Artificial Intelligence percentages of 30% and above may indicate academic misconduct and should be revised before submission.
An orchard owner claims that the average weight of apples produced in their orchard is 150 grams. To verify this claim, a random sample of 24 apples is taken, and their weights are recorded as follows:
145, 152, 148, 150, 147, 153, 149, 151, 146, 150, 148, 154
147, 149, 150, 148, 152, 151, 146, 149, 150, 148, 147, 151
A study was made to compare the cost of supporting a family of four for a year in different foreign cities. The lifestyle of living at home on an annual income of $ 75,000 was the standard against which living in foreign cities was compared. A comparable living standard in Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok was attained for about $ 64,000. Suppose an executive wants to determine whether there is any difference between Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok in the
average annual cost of supporting her family of four in the manner to which they are
accustomed. She uses the following data, randomly gathered from 11 families in each city, to test this difference. She assumes the annual cost is normally distributed and the population
variances are equal. What does the executive find?
| Kuala Lumpur ($) | Bangkok ($) |
| 69,000 | 65,000 |
| 64,500 | 64,000 |
| 67,500 | 66,000 |
| 64,500 | 64,900 |
| 66,700 | 62,000 |
| 68,000 | 60,500 |
| 65,000 | 62,500 |
| 69,000 | 63,000 |
| 71,000 | 64,500 |
| 68,500 | 63,500 |
| 67,500 | 62,400 |
Criteria |
Fail (0 – 49%) |
Pass (50-64%) |
Credit (65-74%) |
Distinction (75-84%) |
High Distinction (85 – 100%) |
Understanding of statistical inference about single populations (30%) | You did not understand the hypothesis testingfor single populations | You have a basic understanding of the hypothesis testing for single populations, although there are a few errors. | You can understand the hypothesis testingfor single populations despite minor errors. | You can understand the hypothesis testingfor single populations correctly | You can understand the hypothesis testingfor single populations correctly and demonstrate the stepsclearly |
Understanding of statistical inference about two populations (30%) | You did not understand the hypothesis testingfor two populations | You have a basic understanding of the hypothesis testing for two populations, although there are a few errors. | You can understand the hypothesis testing for two populations despite minor errors. | You can understand the hypothesis testing for two populations correctly | You can understand the hypothesis testing for two populations correctly and demonstrate the stepsclearly |
Understanding of two types of errors (15%) | You did not understand two typesof errors | You have a basic understanding of the two types of errors, although there are a few errors. | You can understand the two types of errors despite minor errors. | You canunderstand the twotypes of errors with reasonable explanations. | You can understand the two types of errors with excellent explanations. |
Effectiveness of communication (15%) |
Your written communication is poor. |
Your written communication is easy to follow. |
Your written communication is clear and succinct to anabove-average standard. | Your written communication is clear and succinct to a veryhigh standard. |
Your written communication is clear and succinct to an exceptionally high standard. |
| Use of academicallyappropriate document style,writing style and referencing system (10%) |
You have not used an academically appropriate writing style. |
You have used an academically appropriate writingstyle. |
You have used an academically appropriate writing styleto an above-average standard. |
You have used an academically appropriate writing styleto a very high standard. |
You have used an academically appropriate writing style to an exceptionally high standard. |
Rubric for Assessment 2 – Presentation (10%)
Criteria |
Fail (0 – 49%) |
Pass (50-64%) |
Credit (65-74%) |
Distinction (75-84%) | High Distinction (85 – 100%) |
Clarity of presentation (2 pts) |
Your presentation was not clear(e.g., because it was difficult to follow your argument, your props or diagrams wereunnecessary or difficult to follow, or you did not pronounce your words well). |
Your presentation was sufficiently clear to your intended audience (of business professionals) (e.g., becauseit was easy to follow your argument, your props or diagrams were relevant, and you spoke clearly). |
Your presentation was clear to an above- average standard. |
Your presentation was clear to a very high standard. |
Your presentation was clear to an exceptional standard. |
Depth of knowledge of presenter (2 pts) |
You did not demonstrate that you possessed enough knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation (e.g., because of the language you used, becauseof your answersto unrehearsed questions or because of the examples yougave). |
You demonstrated enoughdepth of knowledge of the subjectmatter of thepresentation (e.g., because of thelanguage you used,your answers to unrehearsed questions or the examples you gave). |
You demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation to an above-average standard. |
You demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation to a very high standard. |
You demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter of the presentation to an exceptional standard. |
Level of audience engagement (2 pts) |
You failed to engage youraudience (e.g., because you failed to create opportunities for audience engagement, dressed inappropriately or started/finished the presentation late). |
You sufficiently engaged your audience (e.g., because you created opportunities for audience engagement, dressed appropriately and started/finished on time). |
You sufficiently engaged your audience to an above-average standard. |
You sufficiently engaged your audience to a very high standard. |
You sufficiently engaged your audience to an exceptional standard. |
Completion of formalpeer and self-evaluation (2 pts) |
You failed to complete the formal peer and self-evaluation form or failed to complete it adequately (e.g., because your comments were brief or genuine). |
You completed the formal and self- evaluation form to a satisfactory standard (e.g., because your comments werethoughtful and genuine). |
You completed the formal peer and self- evaluation to an above-average standard. |
You completed the formal peer and self- evaluation to a veryhigh standard. |
You completed the formal peer and self- evaluation to an exceptional standard. |
Your contribution to the group assessment task (as assessed by reference to peer andself-evaluation and your lecturer’s observations) (2 pts) |
Your contribution to the group task was below the expected standard (e.g.,in terms of time on task, academic rigour of contribution, cooperation with others or keepingto agreed deadlines etc). |
You contributed to the group task to a sufficient standard(e.g., in terms of time on task, academic rigour of contribution, cooperation with others, keeping to agreeddeadlines etc). |
You contributed to the group task to an above- average standard. |
You contributed to the group task to a very highstandard. |
You contributed to the group task to an exceptionally high standard. |
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
