3.15) a) 195, 107 calories; 525, 150 mg Sodium, respectively.

b) There seems to be a vague negative association – that the more calories are in a hot dog, the more salt it is likely to have. c) There is one outlier – the 107 calorie value; there seems to be a roughly linear relationship between the other values; the relationship’s strength is low. 3.16) a) Clearly positive but not near one; the data are spaced very far apart, and both factors increase together. b) Closer to zero; the values are even further apart in spacing, and there is an outlier more severe than any of those in figure 3.4. c) In figure 3.4, the correlation decreases, because the current outliers balance with slightly skewed non-outliers when correlation is determined, and taking them away undoes this balance; in figure 3.8, the correlation increases, because the outlier was off from the correlation very severely, and unbalanced by other values. All this occurs because r is not a resistant measure. 3.17) d) The two correlations are the same; this is to be expected, as the multiplication of values from the x and y values creates the correlation value, and the two sets of values change by reciprocal factors. 3.18) a) -.3 b) Closer to zero; the values are even further apart in spacing, and there is an outlier more severe than any of those in figure 3.4. c) In figure 3.4, the correlation decreases, because the current outliers balance with slightly skewed non-outliers when correlation is determined, and taking them away undoes this balance; in figure 3.8, the correlation increases, because the outlier was off from the correlation very severely, and unbalanced by other values. All this occurs because r is not a resistant measure.