Hi Kaitlyn,
First off, let's identify the null and alternative hypotheses:
H0: mu1=mu2, no significant difference in true mean recovery angle
HA: mu1 not equal to mu2; some significant difference in true mean recovery angle
Again, we've got that degrees of freedom problem for unequal sample variances. We can get test statistic relatively easily:
t=(x-bar1 - x-bar2)/sqrt[(s12/n1) + (s22/n2)
x-bar1=133.52
x-bar2=139.85
s1=16.99
s2=4.356
n1=25
n2=20
t=(133.52 - 139.85)/sqrt[(16.992/25) + (4.3562/20)]
t= -1.79
That's our t-statistic, but we need degrees of freedom for p-value. I located an easier formula than the one we used in our last problem. This is Satterthwaite's Correction:
df= [(n1-1)(n2-1)] / [(n1-1)c22 + (n2-1)c12]
where:
c1=(s12/n1)/[(s12/n1) + (s22/n2)]
c2=1-c1
Thus:
c1= (16.9982/25)/[(16.9982/25) + (4.3562/20)]
c1= 0.924
c2= 0.076
Now, we plug those values into the initial Satterthwaite equation; all other variables are the same as when we computed the test statistic
df= [(n1-1)(n2-1)] / [(n1-1)c22 + (n2-1)c12]
df=[(25-1)(20-1)]/[((25-1)0.0762) + ((20-1)0.924)2]
df=27.87, round down
df=27
Now, look at the t-table row for 27 degrees of freedom and look for the absolute value of our t-test statistic -1.79, abs[-1.79]=1.79. You will see that this falls between the two-tailed p-values 0.05 and 0.10. Thus:
0.05 < p < 0.10
You cannot get any closer than that without statistical software. However, we do know that we cannot reject the null hypothesis since p is well above our 0.01 significance level. Therefore, we fail to reject the null and conclude no significant difference in mean recovery angles. I hope this helps.