Important: The stats package has been deprecated. Use the superseding command Statistics[OneWayANOVA] instead.
>

$\mathrm{with}\left({\mathrm{stats}}_{\mathrm{anova}}\right)\:$

>

$\mathrm{with}\left({\mathrm{stats}}_{\mathrm{describe}}\right)\:$

>

$\mathrm{Treatment\_1}\u2254\left[10\,11\,8\right]$

${\mathrm{Treatment\_1}}{\u2254}\left[{10}{\,}{11}{\,}{8}\right]$
 (1) 
Three of the measures have the same value
>

$\mathrm{Treatment\_2}\u2254\left[\mathrm{Weight}\left(9\,3\right)\,11\right]$

${\mathrm{Treatment\_2}}{\u2254}\left[{\mathrm{Weight}}{}\left({9}{\,}{3}\right){\,}{11}\right]$
 (2) 
One bad measure
>

$\mathrm{Treatment\_3}\u2254\left[\mathrm{missing}\,10\,11\,7\,12\right]$

${\mathrm{Treatment\_3}}{\u2254}\left[{\mathrm{missing}}{\,}{10}{\,}{11}{\,}{7}{\,}{12}\right]$
 (3) 
>

$\mathrm{data}\u2254\left[\mathrm{Treatment\_1}\,\mathrm{Treatment\_2}\,\mathrm{Treatment\_3}\right]$

${\mathrm{data}}{\u2254}\left[\left[{10}{\,}{11}{\,}{8}\right]{\,}\left[{\mathrm{Weight}}{}\left({9}{\,}{3}\right){\,}{11}\right]{\,}\left[{\mathrm{missing}}{\,}{10}{\,}{11}{\,}{7}{\,}{12}\right]\right]$
 (4) 
>

$R\u2254\mathrm{oneway}\left(\mathrm{data}\right)$

${R}{\u2254}\left[\left[{2}{\,}\frac{{17}}{{33}}{\,}\frac{{17}}{{66}}\right]{\,}\left[{8}{\,}\frac{{65}}{{3}}{\,}\frac{{65}}{{24}}\right]{\,}\left[{10}{\,}\frac{{244}}{{11}}\right]\right]{\,}\left[{2}{\,}{8}{\,}\frac{{68}}{{715}}{\,}{0.089709850848}\right]$
 (5) 
The Fratio is 68/715 with 2 and 8 degrees of freedom.
>

$\mathrm{Ratio}\u2254{2}_{}$

${\mathrm{Ratio}}{\u2254}\left[{2}{\,}{8}{\,}\frac{{68}}{{715}}{\,}{0.089709850848}\right]$
 (6) 
the level of significance is measured with
>

$\mathrm{sig}\u2254\mathrm{stats}\[\mathrm{statevalf}\,\mathrm{cdf}\,\mathrm{fratio}\[\mathrm{Ratio}\[1\]\,\mathrm{Ratio}\[2\]\]\]\left({\mathrm{Ratio}}_{3}\right)$

${\mathrm{sig}}{\u2254}{0.08970985085}$
 (7) 
Since this is much smaller than 0.95, we conclude that there is no significance to the differences in means:
>

$\mathrm{map}\left(\mathrm{mean}\,\left[\mathrm{Treatment\_1}\,\mathrm{Treatment\_2}\,\mathrm{Treatment\_3}\right]\right)$

$\left[\frac{{29}}{{3}}{\,}\frac{{19}}{{2}}{\,}{10}\right]$
 (8) 
>

$\mathrm{evalf}\left(\right)$

$\left[{9.666666667}{\,}{9.500000000}{\,}{10.}\right]$
 (9) 
Now we change the treatment results to yield
>

$\mathrm{data2}\u2254\left[\left[10\,11\,8\right]\,\left[\mathrm{Weight}\left(11\,3\right)\,13\right]\,\left[\mathrm{missing}\,14\,15\,11\,16\right]\right]\:$

>

$\mathrm{Ratio2}\u2254{\mathrm{oneway}\left(\mathrm{data2}\right)}_{2}$

${\mathrm{Ratio2}}{\u2254}\left[{2}{\,}{8}{\,}\frac{{4388}}{{715}}{\,}{0.97575671908}\right]$
 (10) 
The difference between
>

$\mathrm{map}\left(\mathrm{mean}\,\mathrm{data2}\right)$

$\left[\frac{{29}}{{3}}{\,}\frac{{23}}{{2}}{\,}{14}\right]$
 (11) 
>

$\mathrm{evalf}\left(\right)$

$\left[{9.666666667}{\,}{11.50000000}{\,}{14.}\right]$
 (12) 
is significant at the 0.05 level (since 0.976>0.95) but not at the 0.01 level (since 0.976<0.99).