Sample sizes were equal for both groups (n = 50 each). Mean weight loss for Diet A was 5.341 kg with a standard deviation of 2.536 kg, while mean weight loss for Diet B was 3.710 kg with a standard deviation of 2.769 kg. The average difference in weight loss is therefore 1.631 kg in favor of Diet A.
Given the similar variability and equal sample sizes, an independent samples t-test as illustrated in the worksheet indicates a statistically significant difference between diets (t ≈ 3.07, two-tailed p ≈ 0.0028). This suggests that the observed difference is unlikely to be due to chance alone.
Conclusion: Diet A appears to be more effective than Diet B for weight reduction, with participants on Diet A losing on average about 1.6 kg more than those on Diet B.
Both groups have n = 50. Central tendency favors Diet A: its mean weight loss is 5.341 kg and median is 5.642 kg, compared with Diet B’s mean of 3.710 kg and median of 3.840 kg. Notably, Diet A’s median exceeds Diet B’s upper quartile of 5.404 kg, indicating that more than half of Diet A participants lost at least as much weight as the top 25 percent of Diet B participants.
Dispersion is modestly lower for Diet A by standard deviation (2.536 vs 2.769), while interquartile ranges are similar but slightly tighter for Diet A (IQR 3.285 vs 3.451). Diet A’s quartile range spans 3.748 to 7.033 kg, whereas Diet B’s spans 1.953 to 5.404 kg. The overlap between distributions is limited around the upper half of Diet A’s results, reinforcing the separation suggested by the medians and quartiles.
Shape indicators suggest mild left skew for both diets because means are just below medians, but this does not alter the practical message: Diet A consistently outperforms Diet B across the center of the distribution and much of the spread. Combined with the previously reported significant difference in means, these quartile summaries strengthen the conclusion that Diet A is more effective for weight reduction.
The frequency and percentage tables show the distribution of brand preferences among respondents in Areas 1 and 2. In Area 1, Brand A accounts for 11 respondents (15.7%), Brand B for 17 respondents (24.3%), and “Other” brands dominate with 42 respondents (60.0%). In contrast, Area 2 shows higher overall engagement with the main brands: Brand A rises to 19 respondents (21.1%), Brand B increases to 30 respondents (33.3%), and “Other” brands decline to 41 respondents (45.6%).
These results indicate a clear shift in brand preference patterns between the two demographic areas. Respondents in Area 2 show a stronger preference for the major brands A and B, with Brand B particularly gaining popularity. Meanwhile, Area 1 respondents display a heavier reliance on “Other” brands, suggesting a more fragmented or less brand-loyal market. The data imply that marketing strategies for Brands A and B may already be more effective or more established in Area 2, whereas Area 1 may represent an opportunity for further brand development or targeted promotion to increase recognition and loyalty.