You conduct a thorough statistical analysis of the capabilities of three machines and conclude that machine number 3 is giving a consistently sub-standard performance. Your recommendation is, due to the machine's age and the costs of repair, it should be replaced with new equipment. The line supervisor stated that there was no value in conducting an analysis to conclude what was already known to be fact. What can be stated about these two contrasting approaches?

a. The statistical analysis validates the supervisors intuition.

b. The supervisor is right, there was no need for a detailed analysis.

c. Neither conclusion is necessarily right, there is always room for error.

d. More data may be needed to convince the supervisor

Option a:

This statement is not applicable. The statistical analysis concludes that the machine is under performing due to its age and its repair cost. The supervisor knew the fact that the machine is old and costly to repair but could not relate that fact to the other fact that the machine is under performing

Option b:

This statement is not applicable. The detailed analysis was to study whether there is a link between the performance of the machine with the condition of the machine. Detailed analysis was necessary.

Option c:

The statement is not applicable. The statistical analysis was conducted thoroughly, more likely had gone through several hypotheses, less likely to have an error. The supervisor's statement, however, was based on intuition only which leaves room for bias and error.

Option D:

The statement is applicable. There might be a need to present more data to convince the supervisor.