You are on page 1of 9

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.345629
R Square
0.119459
Adjusted R Square
0.060756
Standard Error
12043.81
Observations
17
ANOVA
df
Regression
Residual
Total

SS
MS
F
Significance F
1 2.95E+08 2.95E+08 2.034983 0.174198
15 2.18E+09 1.45E+08
16 2.47E+09

Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat
P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
Intercept 115801.5 38350.07 3.01959 0.008622 34060.24 197542.7 34060.24 197542.7
10.14 -4678.03 3279.308 -1.42653 0.174198 -11667.7 2311.654 -11667.7 2311.654

RESIDUAL OUTPUT
Observation
Predicted 85300
Residuals
Standard Residuals
1 64904.55 -24404.6 -2.09277
2 58121.42 3678.585 0.31545
3 56390.55 -5590.55 -0.47941
4 58308.54 2291.464
0.1965
5 70003.6 9396.398 0.805771
6 63126.9 8273.097 0.709445
7 63267.24 7432.756 0.637383
8 59805.5
-4205.5 -0.36064
9 59337.7 11562.3 0.991504
10 65840.16 11359.84 0.974143
11 57372.93 5827.069 0.49969
12 57981.07 13118.93 1.12499
13 69208.34 -13708.3 -1.17553
14 60741.11 -18641.1 -1.59854
15 55221.04
-15221 -1.30525
16 62004.18 7995.823 0.685667
17 59665.16 834.836 0.07159

0% .Upper 95.

676 Observations 13 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total SS MS F Significance F 1 5.60103 0.232 0.3 -3732.611493 Adjusted R Square 0.57 -8023.49 7.68 9582.4 44.3 -3732.44 -12115.16095 0.77 2370.44 RESIDUAL OUTPUT Observation Predicted 85300 Residuals Standard Residuals 1 61755.001587 11 3.14 -7923.339 -4.223035 6 70471.78198 R Square 0.72296 8 63815.319 13 64370.797 0.57 -1.74027 .35 -0.832814 12 68332.317 1.453355 10 60487.8 110120.16E+08 17.6 7084.31351 0.28162 4 81882 -2482 -0.28E+08 29818984 12 8.071 0.2 1667.0% Upper 95.6 22415.576174 Standard Error 5460.355036 9 74829.53467 3 62072.397 1.113679 1.008531 2 58823.93 1166.27 -3870.043678 7 64607.355 0.64 228.27 -0.47473 5 70233.419 0.86 1904.16E+08 5.44E+08 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%Lower 95.518806 11 61517.99 -1.SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.001587 -12115.4 208792.58 2712.35 -1472.96E-05 110120.4 208792.99 -9007.8 10.0% Intercept 159456.

0% .Upper 95.

00 9.700 11.000 11.026239 3279.11945907 Adjusted R Square 0.33 61.654 -11667.95E+08 15 2.79 79.95 40.000 60.400 11.7 34060.0% 115801.Price ($) Quantity_Sold 10.100 12.654 .49 63.000 50.008621749 34060.000 80.96 55.14 85.97 55.0196 0.000 Quantity Sold Outlet_Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 70.200 12.000 9.4789 38350.7 2311.70 50.100 9.18E+09 16 2.81196 Observations 17 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total Intercept 10.400 11.24 197542.00 A single variable linear regression model is a reason fit since it is apparent from the scatter plot that there is a distinct linear a SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.000 40.29 60.000 30.24 197542.47E+09 MS F Significance F 3E+08 2.500 12.14 SS 1 2.26 71.77 42.800 12.7 -4678.0% Upper 95.50 70.900 10.50 10.034983261 0.060756342 Standard Error12043.88 40.000 12.36 71.600 12.300 10.500 11.17419802 -11667.345628515 R Square 0.308 -1.07 70.07 3.68 77.4265 0.23 70.200 12.800 12.174198 1E+08 Coefficients Standard Errort Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.600 9.7 2311.00 60.500 90.

11945907 Our R^2 value from the regression output indicates that 11. the quantity sold changes by 0.48 .95% of the variation in the number of pizzas sold can be explained This suggests that the other 88.4678.5 -4678. Location . This is not a very sensible interpretation as demand for a commodity that is priced at zero (ie.ESTIMATED EQUATION: A single variable linear regression model is a reason fit since it is apparent from the scatter plot that there is a distinct linear a Y=b0+b1X1 + e Y = 115801.48 . price. This is an expected result since we know from the negative slope in our downward trending data that price is negatively corre In our case. the estimated quantity sold is 6434 We have already established the fact that since the single variable regression model using price is only able to explain 11. the less the number of purchases and vice versa.05% of the variation in quantity may be explain by factors other than price. The low R^2 value indicates that price alone is not a good descriptor for explaining the variation in quantity. b0: The intercept coefficient does not carry much practical meaning and is only there as a mathematical prerogative. If price increases by 1%. the pearson's correlation coefficient indicates that for every 1% change in price. "free") approaches a singularity b1: The gradient/slope coefficient is the key feature of the single variable linear regression model. That is. the negative relationship between price and quantity sold is insignificant at the 95% level and also insignificant at the Selling price = $11 Y = 115801. The intercept suggests that when price per pizza is zero. p-value = 0.95% This can be confirmed by examining the scatter plot which shows several outliers and a wide spread around the fitted trendlin The recommendation is to attempt to fit a multiple regression model that incorporates other explanatory factors eg.44899.8258).4 eg. a better model which incorporates other descriptive variables is need to provide a more comprehensive picture.19 115801. Hence.449% and vice versa.1742 The p-value of 0. In our case.1742 indicates that the slope coefficient. ie. the more expensive the pizza. holding all else constant.03X Y b0 b1 X 64343.03X The sign estimate for b1 is negative. quantity sold will decrease by approximately 0. This concurs with our scatter plot which is negatively trending. the quantity of pizzas sold decreases by 4678 piz Correlation coefficient between price (X) and quantity sold (Y): -0. R Square 0. the quantity sold is 115801.44899 The correlation coefficient is -0. This is a reasonable and expected outcome as we expect price to be negatively correlated with quantity sold.4678. is only significant at the 82. Hence. it indicates that for every $1 increase in the sale price per pizza.03 11 The linear regression model shown above indicates that at a selling price of $11 per pizza.58% level (0.

600 79.29 9. Price 10.70 12.000 60.000 55.36 11.00 12.000 45.000 60.000 40.000 65.50 Price ($) hat there is a distinct linear and downward trending relationship between price and quantity sold.000 50.97 12.26 11.00 y = -6229.49 12.700 55.800 60.000 85.33 12.7x + 134705 R² = 0.000 9.00 13.50 13.50 12.800 50.2016 10.000 75.00 11.200 63.400 71.14 12.0% 85.50 .07 10.400 70.00 10.23 11.Quantity vs.300 61.200 71.000 70.600 70.68 12. Upper 95.100 70.500 90.79 11.900 77.000 80.50 11.50 12.

and also insignificant at the 90% level. customer service etc.95% of the variation in quantity sold. cal prerogative. s sold decreases by 4678 pizzas.449% in the opposite direction. imated quantity sold is 64343 pizzas. only able to explain 11. lanatory factors eg. quality. that price is negatively correlated to quantity. . ad around the fitted trendline.hat there is a distinct linear and downward trending relationship between price and quantity sold. quantity sold changes by 0. ee") approaches a singularity. % level (0. it is thus a poor model and poor fit for the data. pizzas sold can be explained by the variation in the selling price. omprehensive picture.8258). Location. l else constant. uantity sold.

000 9.00 11.00 12.000 y = -8792.50 12.000 65.000 40.00 10.000 85.50 11.6976 80.50 10.000 50.000 55.8x + 170004 R² = 0.90.000 70.000 60.50 13.000 45.000 75.00 .