Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

# HW 4 Ch 4

TV
Demand for
Appearences (X) Bass Drums (Y) (X-Xbar)^2 (Y-Ybar)^2 (X-Xbar)(Y-Ybar) Ycap (Y-Ycap)^2 (Ycap-Ybar)^2
3
3
6.25
12.25
8.75
4
1
6.25
4
6
2.25
0.25
0.75
5
1
2.25
7
7
2.25
0.25
0.75
8
1
2.25
6
5
0.25
2.25
-0.75
7
4
0.25
8
10
6.25
12.25
8.75
9
1
6.25
5
8
0.25
2.25
-0.75
6
4
0.25
33
39
17.5
29.5
17.5
12
17.5
5.5
6.5
SSE
SST
SSR

Slope, bo is
Intercept, b1 is
Reg Equa is

1
1
Ycap = 1 + 1X

If TV appearences was

HW 4 Ch 4

3
4
7
6
8
5

Demand for
Bass Drums (Y)
3
6
7
5
10
8

relationship

Demand for
Bass Drums (Y)
12
Demand for Drums

TV
Appearences (X)

10

y=x+1
R = 0.5932

Demand for
Bass Drums (Y)

6
4

## Linear (Demand for

Bass Drums (Y))

2
0
0

TV Appearences

4-10a Plot

10

HW 4 Ch 4

Test the results in 4-10 for a statistically significant relationship @ the 0.05
level
s^2 = MSE = SSE / (n-k-1)
MSE = 12 / (6-1-1) =
3
MSR = SSR / k = 17.5 / 1 =
17.5
F = 17.5 / 3 = 5.833333
df1 = k =
1
df2 = n-k-1 =
4
From table: f0.05, 1, 4 =
7.71
The null hypothesis states there is no linear relationship. We can reject the null
hypothesis if the calculated test statistic is > the F value from the table. In this case the
test statistic is < the F value from the table. Therefore, we cannot reject the null
hypothesis. We cannot conclude that there is a statistically signifcant relationship at the
0.05 level.

TV

## Bass Drums (Y)

3
3
4
6
7
7
6
5
8
10
5
8
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
R Square
Standard Error
Observations

0.770207984
0.593220339
0.491525424
1.732050808
6

ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total

1
4
5
Coefficients

Intercept
TV
Appearences (X)

4-11

SS
17.5
12
29.5

MS
F
ignificance F
17.5 5.833333 0.07314
3

## tandard Erro t Stat

P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% ower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
1 2.384474 0.41938 0.696482 -5.62036 7.62036 -5.62036 7.62036
1 0.414039 2.415229

0.07314

-0.14956 2.149557

-0.14956 2.149557

HW 4 Ch 4
TV
Demand for
Appearences (X) Bass Drums (Y)
3
3
4
6
7
7
6
5
8
10
5
8
Using Excel, the regression
equation is = 1 + 1X . F = 5.83,
the significant level is 0.073. This
is significant at the 0.10 level
(0.073 < 0.10), is not significant
at the 0.05 level. There is
marginal evidence that there is a
relationship between demand
for drums and tV appearances.

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.770208
R Square
0.5932203
Standard Error
1.7320508
Observations
6
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
TV
Appearences
(X)

1
4
5

SS
17.5
12
29.5

MS
F
ignificance F
17.5 5.833333 0.07314
3

## Coefficients andard Erro t Stat

P-value Lower 95%Upper 95% ower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
1 2.384474 0.41938 0.696482 -5.62036 7.62036 -5.62036 7.62036

1 0.414039 2.415229

4-12

## 0.07314 -0.14956 2.149557 -0.14956 2.149557

HW 4 Ch 4
Test 1 (X) Final Avg (Y)
98
93
77
78
88
84
80
73
96
84
61
64
66
64
95
95
69
76

## part a SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R
0.920518
R Square
0.847354
Standard Error 4.665085
Observations
9
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total

Intercept
Test 1 (X)

SS
MS
F
Significance F
1 845.6589 845.6589 38.857611 0.000430953
7 152.3411 21.76302
8
998

## Coefficientsandard Erro t Stat

18.98921 9.751788 1.947254
0.739859 0.118689 6.233587
83

P-value
Lower 95% Upper 95% ower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
0.092541 -4.07010345 42.04853 -4.0701 42.04853
0.000431 0.459203846 1.020514 0.459204 1.020514

Part b

## the final avg would be 80.39751151

Part c

r (the correlation coefficient) is .92. This indicates a very strong positive relationship between the students score on the first exam
and their probable final average.
r2 (the coefficient of determination) is .847354. This indicates that approximately 85% of the variability in a students final average
is explained by the regression equation.

4-13 a, b, & c

HW 4 Ch 4
HP (X1)
67
50
62
69
66
63
90
99
63
91
94
88
124
97
114
102
114
142
153
139

## Weight (X2) MPG (Y)

1844
44
1998
44
1752
40
1980
37
1797
37
2199
34
2404
35
2611
32
3236
30
2606
28
2580
26
2507
26
2922
25
2434
22
3248
20
2812
21
3382
18
3197
18
4380
16
4036
16

#1

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.903472
R Square 0.816262
Standard E 4.123182
Observatio
20
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total

SS
MS
F
ignificance F
2 1283.939 641.9697 37.76153 5.57E-07
17 289.0106 17.00063
19 1572.95

## Coefficientsandard Erro t Stat

Intercept 57.68586 3.651218 15.79907
HP (X1)
-0.16567 0.059546 -2.78213
Weight (X2 -0.00505 0.002444 -2.06455

## P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% ower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%
1.36E-11 49.98247 65.38926 49.98247 65.38926
0.012777 -0.2913 -0.04003 -0.2913 -0.04003
0.054568 -0.0102 0.000111 -0.0102 0.000111

#2

The significant F value is .0000557. This tells me the model is very good. This low significance level proves a
relationship exists between MPG (Y) and at least one of the independent variables HP (X1 and Weight (X2).
Also the r2 value is .816, meaning approximately 82% of the change in MPG can be attributed to HP and/or Wt.

#3

Looking at the p-values for HP and Weight we can see that both HP and Weight are helpful in predicting MPG.
Using a 5% significance level the null hypothesis for HP is easily rejected as the p-value is 0.012777, well below
the significant level of 0.5. The null hypothesis for Weight is not as easily rejected as the p-value is 0.054568.
This is slightly less than 95% confidence, but still significant.

4-28