Part I
Does the addition of fertilizer increase crop production? Farmers are very interested in the amount of fertilizer used versus how much yield a crop can give. Fertilizer costs money and determining the amount of fertilizer that will maximize production is very important. My hypothesis is that the addition of fertilizer will increase crop yield.
I predict with the addition of more fertilizer, the production of corn will increase. The dependent variable is tons of corn produced in an acre field. The independent variable is the addition of fertilizer to the field. There will be experimental plots (each with differing levels of fertilizer added) and control plots (no fertilizer added). There are two types of experimental plots. One independent variable treatment will involve the use of manure as fertilizer and the other treatment will use commercially acquired fertilizer. Data will consist of tons of corn produced measured at harvest. The production will be compared between the control plots with no fertilizer added and the two treatment plots (manure as fertilizer and commercial fertilizer.)
The experimental plots that were augmented with fertilizer yielded more tons of corn per acre than the control plots with no fertilizer. Within the fertilizer groups, the commercial fertilizer plots produced more tons of corn compared to those that used manure. As a result, I would state that using commercial fertilizer is a better method to increase crop yield in the production of corn. Crop yield is not the only concern of farmers however. The cost of commercial fertilizer is much higher than the “free” use of manure, usually available on farms.
There are also alternative hypotheses that could explain the results. Perhaps the fields used for control were rotated with different crops. Crop rotation is very important in nutrient cycling in farming. Another explanation is the aspect of the location of the field plots. Location can affect how much water is available, exposure to winds, etc.
Part II
David Horowitz, a consumer advocate, wrote an article about the top driver distractions. He cited a study done by the American Automobile Associate (AAA) Foundation for Traffic Safety. According to the results of this study, Horowitz concluded that cell phone usage was not the primary cause of accidents. The author begins the article with a statement which could be misleading, suggesting cell phone usage is not a major distraction or the cause of the majority of accidents.
The study involved the use of video cameras in the cars of over 1000 participants who did not have any knowledge of what focus of the study was. Assuming this did not change the behavior of the participants and no one was using hands-free devices to talk on the phone, we will consider the list of top driver distractions as reliable and valid.
Based on the list provided by the author, it supports his conclusion that cell phone use is not the top distraction drivers have on the road. However, the presentation of the data, top sixteen distractions noted for drivers in the study, was not sufficient enough for a critical analysis. Just a list without any numerical representation of the data or statistics makes it difficult for the reader to determine the magnitude of different between different distractions. For example, there might only be a difference of one or a few occurrences between the items in the list. So presenting the data in a list can be misleading. All of these causes might in fact be comparable. Perhaps a more effective presentation of the data might have been in the form of a pie chart or bar graph, where the reader could have more easily interpreted the data without perhaps being misled by the list format of the data presentation.
One further concern is the assumption of how many accidents are caused by these distractions. The article did not mention that actual accident rates were counted in this study, just the behavior of drivers on video. Just the observation of a behavior does not necessarily indicate a particular outcome (such as auto accidents). It is also confounded by the use of terms like “miscellaneous internal distractions.” This category was not defined, yet it appears most of the distractions within the car listed fall in this category. It would have been more convincing had this been adequately defined. Overall, the study may have merit, but the reporting could be misleading.
Part III
A TV commercial made the statement that four times more men are struck by lightning than women. The commercial suggested that drinking Mountain Dew is the reason because more women drink the beverage. There are multiple reasons why this is the case. I suggest a couple alternative hypotheses. Men are more often outside than women. The probability that you are struck by lightning increases with the amount of time spent outdoors. One alternative hypothesis would be the more time spent outside, the higher the chance of getting hit by lightning.
Another alternative hypothesis is that men take more risks during lightning storms than women. This has been documented in several studies. So, we should expect to see more injuries and fatalities from lightning strikes in men rather than women. Per the Coca Cola Corporation, men drink less Mountain Dew than women. In reality, the increased lightning strikes in men could be a result of behavior, not how much Mountain Dew someone consumes.
