Read attachments

The Morningstar mutual-fund rating system ranks mutual funds, using one to five stars. The stars divide the mutual-fund performances into quintiles: that is, a mutual fund with a one-star rating is in the bottom 20% of mutual funds in its category, a mutual fund with two-stars is in between the 21st and 40th percentile, and so on. These data can be found at www.morningstar.com (Links to an external site.) or screen.yahoo.com/funds.html (Links to an external site.)Obtain a random sample of at least 15 mutual funds from each investment category. Determine the 3 years rate of return for each fund.Obtain a 95% confidence interval for the difference between the mean rates of return. Interpret the interval.You are going to write a report detailing which investment category seems superior.The report contains 4-5 paragraphs in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) format with supporting data supporting your conclusion.Attach the Excel sheet used for the primary data source. You’ll submit both the Word document and the Excel file.SubmissionThis assignment requires a file upload submission (Links to an external site.). After you have reviewed the assignment instructions and rubric, as applicable, complete your submission by selecting the Submit Assignment button next to the assignment title.RubricProject RubricProject RubricCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent30.0 to >26.0 ptsExemplaryAll required elements are fully addressed, easily identified, and integrated into the assignment at the highest level. All key facts are clearly identified and completely addressed.26.0 to >17.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsAll required elements are addressed and identified. Several key facts are identified and completely addressed.17.0 to >9.0 ptsDevelopingRequired elements are addressed, but further elaboration is needed. A few key facts are identified and addressed.9.0 to >0.0 ptsNoviceFew of the required elements are addressed. Little or no elaboration present.0.0 ptsNot AcceptableAssignment not submitted, submitted late OR contains plagiarized content.30.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeData Source30.0 to >26.0 ptsExemplaryOriginal data provided and summarized in appropriate tabular form and is presented in a neat and accurate way graphically or numerically26.0 to >17.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsOriginal data provided and summarized in tabular form, but with a minor error in tabulation or computation or presentation.17.0 to >9.0 ptsDevelopingOriginal data is provided, with quite a few errors when summarizing data either graphically or numerically or data is not appropriately tabulated.9.0 to >0.0 ptsNoviceOriginal data is provided, tabulated and summarized but with some major errors.0.0 ptsNot AcceptableOriginal data is not provided.30.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTechnical40.0 to >34.0 ptsExemplaryDemonstrates excellent problem solving competency using mathematics, quantitative reasoning and statistical analysis and methods. All relevant statistics reported and correctly interpreted. Composition is structured logically, focused, well organized, and flows well.34.0 to >27.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsDemonstrates good problem solving competency using mathematics, quantitative reasoning and statistical analysis and methods.. All relevant statistics reported and correctly interpreted. Composition is structured logically, focused, organized, yet minor errors in format exist.27.0 to >17.0 ptsDevelopingDemonstrates inadequate problem solving competency using mathematics, quantitative reasoning and statistical analysis and methods.. Most of relevant statistics reported and correctly interpreted. Composition is, generally, structured logically, focused, organized, and flows well with but a few errors in format exist.17.0 to >4.0 ptsNoviceDemonstrates poor problem solving competency using mathematics, quantitative reasoning and statistical analysis and methods.. Most of relevant statistics reported yet incorrectly interpreted. Composition is, generally, structured logically, focused, organized, but major errors in format exist.4.0 to >0 ptsNot AcceptableConfusing explanation of statistical concepts.40.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeData Interpretation30.0 to >26.0 ptsExemplaryThorough and accurate interpretation of the data26.0 to >17.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsCorrect and good interpretation of the data.17.0 to >9.0 ptsDevelopingCorrect and good interpretation of the data, except for minor errors or omissions.9.0 to >0.0 ptsNoviceInterpretation of the meaning of the data is provided, but with some major errors.0.0 ptsNot AcceptableNo data interpretation provided30.0 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReport Writing30.0 to >26.0 ptsExemplaryFollows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Communicates in a cohesive, logical style.26.0 to >19.0 ptsMeets ExpectationsMostly follows APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style. Mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style.19.0 to >12.0 ptsDevelopingAPA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style are followed, but with minor errors. Mostly communicates in a cohesive, logical style though at times ideas are unclear and confusing.12.0 to >5.0 ptsNoviceAPA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style are followed, but with major errors. Report is not communicated in a cohesive, logical style. Ideas are unclear and confusing.5.0 to >0 ptsNot AcceptableDoes not follow APA writing style and basic rules of formal English grammar and written essay style.30.0 ptsTotal Points: 160.0