BUS100 Paired Practical Data Analysis Report & Presentation Assignment

BUS100 Business Statistics 

Summer Semester, 2024 

Assessment 2 – Paired Practical Data Analysis Report & Presentation 

Submission Deadline: 

Report – Tuesday, 14 January 2025, 11:59 pm (Week 10) 

Presentation – Scheduled during Week 11 BUS100 classes 

Assessment weighting – 35% 

• Report: 25% 

• Presentation: 10% 

Task Description. 

• Students need to complete two cases by answering all questions. 

• Students are required to present in class in week 11.  

• Each pair of students will need to submit one Word file and one PowerPoint  presentation file summarising the answers. Each student is required to attend the  Week 11 tutorial session to present the answers to the class.  

Demonstrate achievement of this learning outcome: 

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.  

Word count: 

Length: 2000 words (excluding reference list) (plus/minus 10%). A penalty (up to 20%) will  apply if the word count falls below the minimum or exceeds the maximum. 

The report will have the following parts:  

i. Cover page  

ii. Introduction  

iii. Body  

iv. Conclusion  

v. References 

Presentation requirements: 

The allotted time for the presentation is 10–15 minutes, followed by a 5-minute Q&A  session. All group members must actively participate in the presentation. The PowerPoint  should contain a minimum of 10 slides and a maximum of 15 slides. Ensure the slides are  concise, clear, and include an introduction and a conclusion. A 10% penalty will be applied if  the presentation exceeds 15 minutes. 

Other requirements 

• Upload an MS Word file and an Excel spreadsheet. 

• Format: 12-point Arial or Times New Roman, 1.5 line spacing, with page numbers inserted at the bottom right. 

Citation and referencing (APA 7) 

The assignment should show evidence of research, with references from relevant academic  journals. You should have at least TWO (2) 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. 

Assessment submission 

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. 

Case Study 1 (12.5 Marks)

A farmer claims that the average weight of oranges produced in their orchard is 200 grams.  To test this claim, a random sample of 25 oranges is taken, and their weights (in grams) are  as follows: 

198, 202, 200, 197, 201, 199, 203, 196, 200, 198,  

200, 201, 199, 202, 197, 200, 198, 202, 199, 200, 

189, 205, 210, 202, 203. 

Use this sample data to verify the farmer’s claim about the average weight of the oranges.


Question: 

a. Please use a 5% level of significance to conduct an appropriate hypothesis test using the six-step method learned in class. A detailed explanation for each step and a  diagram are necessary. 

b. Would the result be the same at a 0.01 level of significance? Why? 

c. In the context of this hypothesis test, what is a Type I and Type II errors? 

Case Study 2 (12.5 Marks)

A professor asked his research students to anonymously rate how well they liked statistics  on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 10 (love it). He is interested in testing if males tend to give  higher evaluations than females. The ratings are as follows: 

Males’ ratings:  

8, 7, 9, 8, 7, 6, 8, 8, 7, 9, 7, 6, 8, 9, 8, 7, 6, 9, 8, 7 

Females’ ratings: 

6, 5, 7, 6, 5, 6, 7, 7, 6, 5, 6, 6, 7, 6, 5, 6, 5, 7 

Assume the ratings are normally distributed and the population variances are equal.  

Question:

a. The professor wants to test at a 5% significance level whether males give significantly  higher evaluations than females. Please conduct an appropriate hypothesis test using  the six-step method learned in class. A detailed explanation for each step and a  diagram are necessary. 

b. Would the result be the same at a 0.01 level of significance? Why? 

c. In the context of this hypothesis test, what is a Type I Error and What is a Type II  Error?


Rubric for Assessment 2 – Report (25%)

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 testing for  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 testing for single  populations despite minor  errors.

You can understand the  

hypothesis testing for single  populations correctly

You can understand the  

hypothesis testing for single  

populations correctly and  

demonstrate the steps clearly

Understanding of statistical  inference about two  

populations (30%)

You did not understand  the hypothesis testing for  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 steps clearly

Understanding of two types of  errors (15%)

You did not understand  two types of 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 can understand the two  types 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 an 

above-average standard. 

Your written  

communication is clear and  succinct to a very high  

standard. 

Your written communication is  clear and succinct to an  

exceptionally high standard. 

Use of academically 

appropriate document style,  writing style and referencing  system (10%) 

You have not used an  

academically appropriate  writing style. 

You have used an academically  appropriate writing style. 

You have used an 

academically appropriate  

writing style to an above 

average standard. 

You have used an  

academically appropriate  writing style to 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  were unnecessary 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., because it 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, because of your answers to  unrehearsed questions or because of  the examples you gave). 

You demonstrated enough depth of  knowledge of the subject matter of the  presentation (e.g., because of the  language you used, your 

answers to unrehearsed questions or  the examples you gave). 

Southern Cross Institute,

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 your audience  (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 formal peer  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  were thoughtful 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 very high  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  and self-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 keeping to  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 agreed deadlines, etc).

You contributed to the  group task to an above average standard.

You contributed to the  group task to a very high  standard.

You contributed to the  group task to an  

exceptionally high  

standard.