198 views

Uploaded by Wayne Zhu

STATS SOLUTIONS 2012 SEMESTER 1

- ECON1203 Finalexam Coverandtables 2014s2
- finalexamsession1_2010
- ACCT1501 Notes
- ECON 1203 - QMB project
- ECON1203Exam10s2
- Final Stats Project 2012 ECON1203
- ECON1203-2292 Final Exam S212.pdf
- 2012S1 PracExamQuestions
- MGMT1001 SKIMMED Notes for exams
- Econ 1203
- ECON1203 2007 exam
- 2013S2 PracExamQuestions
- 1203 2010sem2 Solution
- 2012S1 PracExamQuestions & Answers(1)
- Econ1203 Qmb Final 2006 s1
- ACCT1501s105 Past Paper
- ECON1203 Major Project UNSW 2010 Sem. 1 (18.5/20)
- Fins1613 Notes
- MGMT1001 Summary 1
- 2015S1 Practice Final Exam Questions

You are on page 1of 9

General comments:

Do not penalize differences due to rounding error

Penalize initial errors but not later incorrect answers that are conditionally correct

Question 1 [12 marks in total]

(i) [2 marks] The distribution of distances would need to have been

symmetric (mean equal to median), unimodal and bell shaped.

(ii) [2 marks] ~(50,000, 12, 000

2

)

(34000 < < 56000) =

16000

12000

< <

6000

12000

= (1.33 < < .5) = 0.4082 +0.1915 = 0.5997

(iii) [2 marks]:

( < ) = <

50000

12000

= 0.05

50000

12000

= 1.645

= 50,000 1.645 12000 = 30260

( > ) = >

50000

12000

= 0.10

50000

12000

= 1.285

= 50,000 +1.285 12000 = 65,420

[1 mark each. Use of approximate percentiles from normal tables also acceptable.]

(iv) [4 marks] = 64 ; = 0.025 = 46,000

We wish to test

0

: = 50,000;

1

: < 50,000

Hence under the null hypothesis

~(50,000,12000

2

/64) and rejection region is:

=

50000

12000/8

<

0.025

= 1.96

or <

=

0

0.025

Since =

4600050000

1500

= 2.67 <

0.025

= 1.96 or 46,000 < 47,060

we reject the null hypothesis and conclude there is evidence to suggest the new

procedures have been effective.

[1 mark each for correct sampling distribution; hypotheses; decision rule; and

conclusion.]

2

(v) [2 marks] Since we have a large sample of 64 it is not necessary to rely on the

underlying population distribution of distances travelled being normal. Instead we

can invoke the Central Limit Theorem which states that with a sufficiently large

sample size the sample mean is approximately normal with mean equal to the

population mean and variance equal to the population variance divided by the

sample size. This holds irrespective of the underlying population distribution that

our samples are drawn from.

[Need to mention CLT holds irrespective of the underlying population distribution to

get full marks.]

3

Question 2 [9 marks in total]

(i) [1 mark] P(Partner) = 195/371 = 0.526

(ii) [1 mark] P(Female|Partner) = 13/195 = 0.067

(iii) [2 marks] If P(Partner|Female) < P(Partner|Male) as it is here; i.e.

P(Partner|Female) = 13/74 = 0.176 and P(Partner|Male) = 182/297= 0.613

then variables are not expected be independent as independence requires

P(Partner|Female) = P(Partner|Male) = P(Partner).

However, the dependence could be attributed to some confounding factors that are

related to gender but that have not been accounted for in this bivariate

relationship.

[1 mark each for why dependence is indicated & the threat to this conclusion]

(iv) [5 marks]

H0: Gender and partner status are independent;

H1: Gender and partner status are not independent

The test statistic will be distributed

2

with (2-1)(2-1) = 1 degree of freedom and

the decision rule will be to reject if

2

>

0.01,1

2

= 6.6349.

Male Female Totals

Associate 115

(140.89)

61

(35.11)

176

Partner 182

(156.11)

13

(38.89)

195

Totals 297 74 371

* Values in brackets are expected outcomes under independence

The test statistic is

2

=

(115 140.89)

2

140.89

+

(182 156.11)

2

156.11

+

(61 35.11)

2

35.11

+

(13 38.89)

2

38.89

= 4.758 +4.294 +19.091 +17.236 = 45.379

As

2

= 45.379 > 6.6349 we reject the null and hence conclude that there is

evidence that gender and partner status are not independent.

[1 mark each for correct hypotheses; decision rule; 2 marks for test statistic & 1 mark

for conclusion]

4

Question 3 [13 marks in total]

(i) [4 marks] H0: p = 0.5; H1: p > 0.5

Decision rule: Reject H0 if > 0.55

As n = 100 is large assume the normal approximation to the binomial:

~(,

(1)

)

The implied significance level is:

= ( > 0.55| = 0.5) =

>

0.55 0.5

0.5 0.5

100

= ( > 1) = 0.1587

[1 mark for each for hypotheses, mentioning normal approximation to the binomial,

the sampling distribution & .]

(ii) [2 marks] =

60

100

= 0.6 > 0.55

Hence according to managements decision rule there is sufficient evidence to

reject the null hypothesis and proceed with the introduction of the new upgrade.

[1 mark for each for the point estimate & the test outcome.]

(iii) [2 marks] A Type II error would occur here if the null hypothesis of 50% of

customers being willing to pay was not rejected when in fact the percentage of

customers willing to pay was in fact greater than 50%.

( ) = ( < 0.55| = 0.54) =

<

0.55 0.54

0.54 0.46

100

= ( < 0.2) = 0.5793

[1 mark for each for explanation (must be in terms of current problem & not just a

generic definition) & Type II error.]

(iv) [3 marks]

A 99% confidence interval for population proportion p is:

/2

(1 )

5

The CI includes 0.5 and so if this was the basis for the test there would be

insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Naturally the use of a CI implies a two-tailed test whereas we used a one-tailed test

previously but the main difference is the much smaller significance level being

used with the CI in comparison with before. A smaller significance level implies a

wider CI.

[1 mark each for CI, interpretation & reason for difference (either reason is

acceptable).]

(v) [2 marks]

CI width is:

2

2

(1 )

0.08 1.96

0.25

0.04

1.96 0.25

0.04

2

Hence n=600.25 or n=601 and the firm would have needed to interview far more

customers than the 100 they actually interviewed.

If the confidence level is changed to 0.8 the above method remains the same except

that the critical value changes from 1.96 to 1.285 and n=258, still much more than

the 100 used.

Note that before sampling takes place p would be unknown to management and so

p=0.5 has been assumed.

[1 mark for each n.]

6

Question 4 [15 marks in total]

(i) [2 marks]

1 is the population parameter that represents by how much income changes as

age increases by one year or it is the slope of the population regression line

representing the relationship between income and age. Because 0 is the

population mean income for men aged zero it is not a parameter of interest:

(| = 0) =

0

[1 mark for each for interpretation. Must be in terms of population parameters and

not estimates to get full marks.]

(ii) [3 marks] As the estimate of 1 is 892.1 income for this group of men is

predicted to increase on average by $892.1 for each extra year. This effect is

significantly different from zero because the test statistic, 14.44 is greater in

absolute value than say the critical value of 2.576 if we chose a significance level of

say 0.01, (or p-value is 0.0000 and hence < typical choices of significance level such

as 0.01).

Normal critical values have been used because the large sample size allows us to

confidently invoke the central limit theorem and assume normality for the test

statistic.

[1 mark for each for interpretation, assumption and test]

(iii) [2 marks] The P-value reported by EXCEL is that for testing H0: i = 0 versus H1:

i 0. For the intercept have:

P-value = 2xP(| b0 | > 9.43x2637.4) = 0.0000

at any significance level greater than 0.00000 and hence at conventional choices

such as 0.01 or 0.05 we would reject H0 and conclude that the coefficient is

significantly different from zero.

[1 mark each for explanation and interpretation]

(iv) [3 marks] The standard error is the standard error of the estimate (or

regression) which is the estimate of the standard deviation of the disturbance in

the regression model. R Square is the regression R

2

; the proportion of total

variation in the dependent variable explained by the regression. The value of 0.035

only 3.5% of the variation in the income is explained by the explanatory

variable age and hence the fit is not very good.

[1 mark each for definitions and interpretation]

7

(v) [1 mark] The simple correlation between income and age is positive because the

slope coefficient is positive. As the R

2

= 0.035 we know the correlation while

positive is not very large and in fact the simple correlation, r=0.187. (As R

2

= r

2

in

simple linear regression.)

[Sufficient to say the correlation is small and positive for the full mark]

(vi) [1 mark] An unbiased estimator is one whose expectation equals the parameter it

is estimating. Here that means for the OLS estimator b1:

E(b1) = 1

(vii) [2 marks] Education and gender are two independent variables likely to explain

some of the variation in income. In order to better isolate the impact of age on

income, free from these two possible confounding variables, they have controlled

for their effect by making the sample homogenous in terms of education and

gender.

(viii) = 24874.4 +892.1 70 = $87,321.4

We know from the formula for the forecast interval that the interval is wider; the

larger is the estimated standard deviation of the disturbance (the standard error of

the estimate) and the further away from the sample mean that we predict. Here we

have seen that the model does not fit well and hence the standard error of the

estimate is large and also were predicting for a 70 year old which is outside the

sample and hence very far from the sample mean age.

[1 mark each for the calculation and for one of the two reasons why the prediction is

likely to be inaccurate.]

8

Question 5 [11 marks in total]

(i) [2 marks] A comparison of the sample means of HRINCOME does not control for

other confounding factors that might impact of hourly income; i.e. it might be a

biased estimate of the difference due solely to gender.

While the difference in means is large in an economic sense the difference might

not be statistically significant. Without further information we cant determine this.

[2 marks for either explanation]

(ii) [3 mark] H0: 4 = 0; H1: 4 < 0

Given the large sample size we can invoke the central limit theorem and assume

normality for the test statistic. Using say =0.05 the rejection region is t-stat<-

1.645 and as t-stat=-0.06 we cannot reject the null hypothesis that 4 = 0; i.e. there

is insufficient evidence to indicate the presence of discrimination on the basis of

gender after having controlled for other factors affecting incomes.

Alternatively note that reported P-value of 0.955 and hence for a one sided test the

P-value is 0.478 > 0.05 and again we do not reject the null hypothesis that 4 = 0.

[1 mark each for hypotheses (should be one-sided), decision rule (including CLT

justification) and conclusion.]

(iii) [3 marks] The coefficient estimate for 1 is 1.948 with an associated t-stat=5.38

and p-value=0.000.

The estimate indicates that for every extra year of experience the average hourly

income increases by $1.948 holding all other factors constant. That this is a

positive impact is as expected; more experienced lawyers are expected to be paid

more.

The effect is statistically significant. Because p-value=0.000, the null hypothesis of

no impact would be rejected at all significance levels greater than 0.0005.

In terms of economic significance, an increase of $1.948 per hour per extra year

seems like a reasonably large amount compared to sample averages representing

an increase of either 3.3%, compared with $59 for males; or 5.7% compared with

$34 for females. Alternatively 13-14 years experience approximately equates to the

difference associated with being a partner (1.948 13 26.564).

[1 mark each for interpretation, statistical significance and something sensible for

economic significance with the emphasis on understanding that it is distinct from

statistical significance.]

9

(iv) [2 marks] H0: 3 = 0; H1: 3 >0

Using =0.01 the rejection region is t-stat>2.325 and the t-stat=3.69. Thus we

reject the null hypothesis that 3 =0. Alternatively the p-value for the 2-tailed test is

< 0.0005 and hence the p-value for the one-tailed test (which is half the 2-tailed p-

value) is <0.01 and again we reject the null hypothesis.

[1 mark each for test statistic and conclusion.]

(v) [1 mark] Predicted hourly income with EXP=10, SIZE=20, PARTNER=0, FEMALE=0,

is given by.

- ECON1203 Finalexam Coverandtables 2014s2Uploaded byKaison Lau
- finalexamsession1_2010Uploaded byStavros Mouslopoulos
- ACCT1501 NotesUploaded bymothermonk
- ECON 1203 - QMB projectUploaded byhongco1990
- ECON1203Exam10s2Uploaded byKaison Lau
- Final Stats Project 2012 ECON1203Uploaded bynessawho
- ECON1203-2292 Final Exam S212.pdfUploaded byGorge Soros
- 2012S1 PracExamQuestionsUploaded byHenry Hu
- MGMT1001 SKIMMED Notes for examsUploaded byAmitChopra
- Econ 1203Uploaded byAAA820
- ECON1203 2007 examUploaded byUghExt
- 2013S2 PracExamQuestionsUploaded bychunkityik
- 1203 2010sem2 SolutionUploaded byVivianGao
- 2012S1 PracExamQuestions & Answers(1)Uploaded byJonathan Lau
- Econ1203 Qmb Final 2006 s1Uploaded byJessica Huynh
- ACCT1501s105 Past PaperUploaded byAnjewGS
- ECON1203 Major Project UNSW 2010 Sem. 1 (18.5/20)Uploaded byoiu7hjjs
- Fins1613 NotesUploaded byAnurag Pattekar
- MGMT1001 Summary 1Uploaded byShruti Iyengar
- 2015S1 Practice Final Exam QuestionsUploaded byKate Sparks
- ECON1203 Hw Solution week08Uploaded byBad Boy
- MGMT1001 final exam structure s2 2013 (blackboard upload).pdfUploaded byJimmy Nguyen
- Everest Executive SummaryUploaded byJess Chen
- Acct1501 Tutorial questions solutions week3Uploaded bychunkityik
- 2013 S1 Final ExamUploaded byKaison Lau
- Acct Sample Mid SessionUploaded bySteven Kurniawan
- Final Exam Sample MCQ MGMT1001Uploaded byvina22
- ACCT1501 Study NotesUploaded byAnthony Liang
- Econ1203 NotesUploaded bywhyisscribdsopricey
- Mgmt 1001Uploaded byAnavi Suri

- 02 Parameter EstimationUploaded byNeil Tangara
- 20159_BIO361H5F_LEC0101_syllabusUploaded byLaura Garrido
- HTE and Random ForestUploaded byusaid
- Mathematical StatisticsUploaded byRaphael Sison
- Depression & Divorce Long-Term Effects on Adult ChildrenUploaded byChaille
- MmmUploaded byReet Kanjilal
- Is the risk of bankruptcy a systematic risk?Uploaded byLucas Nogueira
- SPSSUploaded byDean Vidafar
- Public and Private Universities in BangladeshUploaded byMir Abdullah Shahneaz
- Effect-of-approach-run-velocity-on-the-optimal-performance-of-the-triple-jump_2015_Journal-of-Sport-and-Health-Science.pdfUploaded byLino Délcio
- ESignal Manual Ch15Uploaded byTatu Arroyo
- 2009-Neuronorma-4-VOSP-JLOUploaded byMarina García López
- 43-04-01Uploaded byShelyzatul Suhaila Kamarudin
- 436-1830-1-PBUploaded bymusthafaafif
- Using sentiment surveys to predict GDP.pdfUploaded byRobert Sullivan
- 2008_2009Uploaded bynitin birajdar
- US Federal Reserve: domsUploaded byThe Fed
- Interpreting Regression OutputUploaded byMilca Amonelo
- literature reviewUploaded byRonak Bhandari
- 8145-32452-1-PB.pdfUploaded bymurugan_muru
- EAL Worksheet Nutrition SemUploaded bysteveklasnic
- IMPORTANT -Multi-Task Warped Gaussian Process for Personalized Age EstimationUploaded byAaron Bae
- 256714Uploaded bySania Nawaz
- The Self-Fulfilling Nature of Positive Illusions in Romantic Relationships: Love Is Not Blind, but PrescientUploaded byhoorie
- jurnal 2Uploaded byIola Salsabila
- Signal Processing for GPRUploaded byThành Duy Nguyễn
- A Brief Interpretation of Output of Simple Regression - HassanUploaded byabdulraufhcc
- Wilson Plot MethodUploaded byThomas Teh Qian Hua
- Manual de SASUploaded byIsur Edrey Papá
- Equity ValuationUploaded bysushilgoyal86