You can complete this assignment after reading Chapter 8 in your textbook and Writing Assignment 3.1. The problem involves objectively verifying claims using statistical tests T.
- Part 3.3: Write, edit and proofread (Links to an external site.) your memorandum (due April 19).
- Part 3.4: Peer reviews (Links to an external site.) (due April 23).
Submitting and completing peer reviews:
You have each been assigned to a group of 5 people (two groups have only 4 people). Submit your assignment to the discussion board that has been set up for you. Submissions in any other location will not be visible and will not get credit. If you still are not comfortable with discussion boards select the circled question mark on your main canvas menu and then select “Search the Canvas Guides” where you can search on discussion boards and review the resources on using discussion boards.
To complete reviews, reply to the work of each of your group members. Feedback MUST be actionable, that is something specific that they can continue to do, do more of, change or add to their work.
Writing Assignment 3.3
Problem Description: Critical comparison of opposing claims, analytical thinking, and problem-solving
The amount of shaft wear (.0001 in.) after a fixed mileage was determined for each of n = 8 internal combustion engines having a copper lead as a bearing material, resulting in and s = 1.25. Assuming that the distribution of shaft wear is normal with mean μ, use the appropriate test at level .05 to test H0 :
= 3.50 versus H
3.50. Please state any assumption you have made if necessary.
Shaft wear in excess of 3.50 could lead to catastrophic failures in extreme weather conditions. Engineers for the manufacturer of the shafts claim that the shaft wear is within acceptable limits. Lawyers representing a class action legal suit filed against the company feel that recent deaths due to catastrophic vehicle failures for engines with this shaft are due to faulty bearings.
- Conduct the appropriate hypothesis test. Whose claim would you support?
- Be sure to present the logic of your statistical approach clearly and completely to convince the Judge and jury of your position.
- Write your response as if you were presenting evidence as an unbiased expert witness.
Audience: As the expert witness for this case, your primary audience is the jury who will be reviewing the case documents. NOTE: this is a different primary audience than your reading discusses. This audience is assumed not to have the specific technical knowledge of the field the witness is explaining. The expert witness must persuade the audience of their expertise and their presentation of the case is the most credible assessment of the facts possible.
Officers of the court, legal advisories, and opposing expert witnesses are important secondary audiences, making it necessary to address any ideas that would counter your case and present why they do not disqualify your case.
Document: This document should present as a memorandum to the court in the case Tolford v. The Automotive Shaft Company. The primary addressee is the Judge – The Honorable Farah Hadi.
Due Date: April 19, 2019
Writing Assignment 3.4
In the week following the first part of the assignment complete the following peer review (Links to an external site.) of the two classmates who submitted directly after you on Canvas. You must include feedback in the reviews that will enable the writers to improve their final submittal. As a minimum, address the following after considering the approach and justification of your peers’ work:
- Are their approaches and justifications clear to you?
- What aspects of their responses were particularly helpful in making this clear? OR, What changes would help to make it clearer?
- Did your peers utilize a professional writing style as outlined in the assignment? Provide examples of how they did or did not meet this requirement.
At the end of your review, offer a general assessment of how your peers completed their assignments. Utilizing the exact language below, indicate whether they:
- Met minimum writing requirements
- Exceeded minimum writing requirements
- Did not meet minimum writing requirements