Week 6 Homework - Chapter 12 Pts

12.1
Null Hypothesis Ho: Pi1=Pi2=Pi3=Pi4=Pi5 2
Alternative Hypothesis H1: Pi1/=Pi2/=Pi3/=Pi4/=Pi5

Chi Square Test Statistic Value 105.464746183309 2

Critical Value 9.48772903678116 2
Decision Reject The Null Hypothesis 2
There is not enough evidience to show
State your decision Relative to the Problem that companies are investing in
technology 2
Part C. 4
If you did find a difference Automotive and Energy
from Part A, please put an X by the ones Automotive and Hospitality
that you determined to be different Automotive and Industrial
X
Energy and Hospitality
Energy and Industrial
X
Hospitality and Industrial
X
X

12.2
Null Hypothesis 2
Alternative Hypothesis

Decision Rule 2
Test Statistic, T1 = 2
Decision 2
State your decision Relative to the Problem
2

12.3
Null Hypothesis 2
Alternative Hypothesis

H Statistic Value 4
Critical Value 2
Decision 2
State your decision Relative to the Problem
2

12.4
Null Hypothesis 2
Alternative Hypothesis
 Critical Value 2
Chi-Square Test Statistic 4
Decision 2
State your decision Relative to the Problem 2
DO NOT EDIT THIS SHEET - USED FOR GRADING

YOU MUST SHOW YOUR WORK and ANSWERS IN THE

OTHER SHEETS TO RECEIVE CREDIT!
 Week 6 Homework - Chapter 13
13.1
Part A.
Equation of the line:
Part B.
Meaning of Yhat

Meaning of b0
Meaning of b1

Parts C - G

Mean Taxes
r-square
R square meaning

Evaluate Your Regression assumptions -L.I.N.E

Is there evidence of a linear relationship?

Conclusions?
13.2

Part A.
Value of bo
Value of b1
Part B
Mean Time
Part C
r-square
Part D
Part E
Value of turbin Watson Statistic, D
Is the data autocorrelated?
Part F

Conclusions?

13.3
Part A.
Value of bo
Value of b1
Part B.
Mean Number of Wins
Part C
r-square
Part D
Evaluate Your Regression Assumptions

Part E
Null Hypothesis
Alternative Hypothesis
Test Statistic Value
Is there evidence of a linear relationship?
Part F
Confidence Interval of the mean Lower
Confidence Interval of the mean Upper
Part G
Confidence Interval of the indiividual Lower
Confidence Interval of the individual Upper
Part H
Confidence Interval of the slope Lower
Confidence Interval of the slope Upper
Week 6 Homework - Chapter 13 Pts

Scatter 2
8.4915x + 852.8 1
3

861.295
The b0 isPredicted verage=assessed
the y intercept 852.8. If value of a home
the assessed value was equal to zero the
assesses value would be 276,850
b1 - slope for every $1,000 increases in taxes the assessed value will increase by
$ 8,000

341118805.523185 2
0.618626453545728 2

61% of the variation can be explained by the taxes 2

L0 - Residiual plot - no specific pattern 2
I - There is no pattern in the residual plot
N - Straight Line
E - There is a constance variable 2

yes 2
As the taxes increase so does the homes assesed value 2 18

2
0.402374804504078
0.012606814437998
0
2.29339697020376 2

0.892398719325968 2
Charts 2

0.016257741444173 2
yes 2

There is a postive autocorrelation between time and invoices 2 14

2
147.7
-16.389

73.9495 2
0.528231831029058 2
L - Residiual plot - no specific pattern
I - There is no pattern in the residual plot
N - Straight Line
E - There is a constance variable 2

Ho: b1=0 2
H1: b1/=0
0 2
Yes 2

-22.38406059786 2
-10.392965525038

53.4380263595216 2
94.470077636474

49.1684544633459 2
98.7396495326497
20
DO NOT EDIT THIS SHEET - USED FOR GRADING

YOU MUST SHOW YOUR WORK and ANSWERS IN THE

OTHER SHEETS TO RECEIVE CREDIT!
12.1
Parts A and B
Null Hypothesis Ho: Pi1=Pi2=Pi3=Pi4=Pi5
Alternative Hypothesis H1: Pi1/=Pi2/=Pi3/=Pi4/=Pi5

Chi Square Test Statistic Value 105.4647

Critical Value 9.4877
Decision Reject The Null Hypothesis
State your decision Relative to the Problem
There is not enough evidience to show that
companies are investing in technology
Part C.
Automotive and Energy
Automotive and Hospitality
Automotive and Industrial
If you did find a difference from Part A,
please put an x on the ones that you X
determined to be different Energy and Hospitality
Energy and Industrial
X
Should have 4 differences Hospitality and Industrial
X
X
 A PwC survey of IT executives found that 25% of automotive executives; 27% of energy executives; 30% of hospita
executives say their companies are currently investing in business sensor technology. Suppose these results were
industries: Automotive, Hospitality, Industrial Products, and Retail.

A. At the 0.05 level of significance, is there evidence of a difference among the industries with respect to the prop
in business sensor technology?

b. Compute the p-value and interpret its meaning.

c. If appropriate, use the Marascuilo procedure and a = 0.05 to determine which companies differ in their current

Observed Frequencies
Choose Again? Automotive Energy Hospitality Industrial retail Total
Yes 125 135 150 165 260 835
No 375 365 350 335 240 1665
Total 500 500 500 500 500 2500

Chi-Square Test

Expected Frequencies
Column variable
Row variable Automotive Energy Hospitality Industrial Retail Total
Yes 167.0000 167.0000 167.0000 167.0000 167.0000 835
No 333.0000 333.0000 333.0000 333.0000 333.0000 1665
Total 500 500 500 500 500 2500

Data
Level of Significance 0.05
Number of Rows 2
Number of Columns 5
Degrees of Freedom 4
 Results
Critical Value 9.4877
Chi-Square Test Statistic 105.4647
p-Value 0.0000
Reject the null hypothesis

Expected frequency assumption

is met.
 executives; 30% of hospitality; 33% of industrial products executives; and 52% of retail
Suppose these results were based on 500 business and IT executives in each of the five

es with respect to the proportion of executives that say their companies are currently investing

anies differ in their current investing in business sensor technology.

Calculations
fo - fe
-42.0000 -32.0000 -17.0000 -2.0000 93.0000
42.0000 32.0000 17.0000 2.0000 -93.0000

(fo - fe)^2/fe
10.5629 6.1317 1.7305 0.0240 51.7904
5.2973 3.0751 0.8679 0.0120 25.9730

Marascuilo Procedure

Level of Significance 0.05

Square Root of Critical Value 3.080216
 Group Sample Proportions
1: 0.25
2: 0.27
3: 0.3
4: 0.33
5: 0.52

MARASCUILO TABLE
Proportions Absolute DiCritical Range
| Group 1 - Group 2 | 0.02 0.0854281053 Not significant
| Group 1 - Group 3 | 0.05 0.0868489757 Not significant
| Group 1 - Group 4 | 0.08 0.0880532349 Not significant
| Group 1 - Group 5 | 0.27 0.0910723488 Significant

| Group 2 - Group 3 | 0.03 0.0878914614 Not significant

| Group 2 - Group 4 | 0.06 0.0890816287 Not significant
| Group 2 - Group 5 | 0.25 0.0920670252 Significant

| Group 3 - Group 4 | 0.03 0.0904451213 Not significant

| Group 3 - Group 5 | 0.22 0.0920670252 Significant

| Group 4 - Group 5 | 0.19 0.0945079262 Significant

12.2 Rank Method
Null Hypothesis m1=m2 1 0 A vice presi
Alternative Hypothesis m1/=m2 2 0 the 20 indiv
method of
3 0 other. After
Decision Rule Do not reject at a = 0.05 5 0 basis of the
Test Statistic, T1 = 84 9 0 Is there evi
Decision Do Not Reject the Null Hypothesis 10 0 = 0.05.)
State your decision Relative to Note THere
the Problem
There is
insufficientevidience to
claim that the difference in
median performance
between the two groups 12 0
13 0
14 0
15 0
4 1
6 1
7 1
8 1
11 1
16 1
17 1
18 1
19 1
20 1

Rank - Blue Rank Red

Mean 8.4 Mean 12.6

Standard Error 1.661325 Standard Error 1.910207
Median 9.5 Median 13.5
Mode #N/A Mode #N/A
Standard Deviation 5.25357 Standard Deviation 6.040603
Sample Variance 27.6 Sample Variance 36.48889
Kurtosis -1.713788 Kurtosis -1.906592
Skewness -0.242071 Skewness -0.158338
Range 14 Range 16
Minimum 1 Minimum 4
Maximum 15 Maximum 20
Sum 84 Sum 126
Count 10 Count 10
2.6E+260
A vice president for marketing recruits 20 college graduates for management training. Each of
the 20 individuals is randomly assigned to one of two groups (10 in each group). A "traditional"
method of training (T) is used in one group, and an "experimental" method (E) is used in the
other. After the graduates spend six months on the job, the vice president ranks them on the
basis of their performance, from 1 (worst) to 20 (best), with the following results
Is there evidence of a difference in the median performance between the two methods? (Use a
= 0.05.)
Note THere are two methods here with a sample size of 10. It is already ranked for you.

Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test

Data
Level of Significance 0.05

Population 1 Sample
Sample Size 10
Sum of Ranks 84
Population 2 Sample
Sample Size 10
Sum of Ranks 126

Intermediate Calculations
Total Sample Size 20
T1 Test Statistic 84
T1 Mean 105
Standard Error of T1 13.2288
Z Test Statistic -1.5875

Two-Tail Test
Lower Critical Value -1.9600
Upper Critical Value 1.9600
p-Value 0.1124
Do not reject the null hypothesis

Conclusion may be invalid due to sample sizes.

Use table method to evaluate test statistic.
12.3
Null Hypothesis m1=m2=m3
Alternative Hypothesis m1/=m2/=m3

H Statistic Value 24.9175

Critical Value 5.9915
Decision Reject The Null Hypothesis
State your decision
Relative to the Problem We reject the null
hypotheses. The
traffic levels
between Asia,
Europe and NA are
not equal.

Data
Asia Europe N. America
14 11 11
21 13 13
25 16 14
25 17 15
26 18 15
26 19 15
28 20 15
29 20 16
30 21 17
30 21 17
32 22 18
33 22 18
33 23 19
33 24 19
33 24 20
33 25 22
33 26 22
34 27 23
34 27 23
34 27 24
34 28 24
35 28 25
35 29 27
36 29 27
37 33 28
37 34 30
38 36 31
38 40 32
39 50 39
58 56 55
 Ranked Data A Transportation analyst wantd to com
Asia Europe N. America across three continents: Asia, Europe
5.5 1.5 1.5 The congestion level is defined as the
vs normal travel time.
26 3.5 3.5 At the .05 level of significance is there
40.5 11.5 5.5 congestion levels across continents?
40.5 14 8.5
44 17 8.5
Here is a handy function:
 For Ranking the data the Rank.Avg fun
of the data
=RANK.AVG(A2,$A$2:$A$21,1)
This formula gives the rank of cell A2, o
44 20 8.5 to indicate you want an ascending orde
52.5 23 8.5
56 23 11.5
59 26 14
59 26 14
62.5 29.5 17
67 29.5 17
67 33 20
67 36.5 20
67 36.5 23
67 40.5 29.5 Kruskal-Wallis Rank Test
67 44 29.5
73 48 33 Data
73 48 33 Level of Significance 0.05
73 48 36.5
73 52.5 36.5 Intermediate Calculations
76.5 52.5 40.5 Sum of Squared Ranks/Sampl203328.72
76.5 56 48 Sum of Sample Sizes 90
78.5 56 48 Number of Groups 3
80.5 67 52.5
80.5 73 59 Test Result
82.5 78.5 61 H Test Statistic 24.9175
82.5 86 62.5 Critical Value 5.9915
84.5 87 84.5 p-Value 0.0000
90 89 88 Reject the null hypothesis
1915.5 1256.5 923
ortation analyst wantd to compare the traffic congestion levels
ree continents: Asia, Europe and North America
estion level is defined as the percentage increase in travel time
l travel time.
5 level of significance is there a difference in the MEDIAN
on levels across continents?

handy function:
ing the data the Rank.Avg function in Excel will calculate it for you: Just highlight all
ta
VG(A2,$A$2:$A$21,1)
ula gives the rank of cell A2, out of the data from a2 to a21.  And the argument 1 is
e you want an ascending order.

Calculations
Group Sample SizeSum of RanksMean Rank
Asia 30 1915.5 63.85
Europe 30 1256.5 41.88333
N. America 30 923 30.76667
 Null Hypothesis Ho: pi1=Pi2=Pi3=Pi4 Observed Frequencies
Alternative Hypothesis Ho: pi1/=Pi2=/Pi3/=Pi4 Geographic Region
Honest Northeast Midwest
Critical Value 7.8147 Yes 102 118
Chi-Square Test Statistic 13.5696 No 74 93
Decision Reject The Null Hypothesis Total 176 211
State your decision Relative to
the Problem
There is not enough
evidience to show that
American's trust
advertisements

Chi-Square Test

Expected Frequencies
0
Honest Northeast Midwest
Yes 98.96657 118.6474
No 77.03343 92.35258
Total 176 211

Data
Level of Significanc 0.05
Number of Rows 2
Number of Column 4
Degrees of Freedo 3

Results
Critical Value 7.8147
Chi-Square Test Stat 13.5696
p-Value 0.0036
Reject the null hypothesis

Expected frequency assumption

is met.
erved Frequencies
Do Americans Trust advertisements? A survey asked Americans
Geographic Region across the US this question. The results are given on the left.
South West Total At the .05 level of significance is there evidence of a difference in
the proportion of Americans who say advertisements are honest
220 115 555 on the basis of geographic region?
135 130 432
355 245 987

Calculations
fo - fe
3.0334 -0.6474 20.3799 -22.7660
-3.0334 0.6474 20.3799 22.7660

ected Frequencies
0
South West Total (fo - fe)^2/fe
199.6201 137.766 555 0.0930 0.0035 2.0807 3.7621
155.3799 107.234 432 0.1195 0.0045 2.6731 4.8332
355 245 987
13.1
Part A.
Insert your scatter plot below
Equation of the line: 8.4915x + 852.8
Part B.
Meaning of Yhat 861.295 Predicted verage assessed value of a home
Meaning of b0
The b0 is the y intercept = 852.8. If the assessed value was
equal to zero the assesses value would be 276,850
Meaning of b1
b1 - slope for every $1,000 increases in taxes the assessed
value will increase by $ 8,000
Parts C - G
Mean Taxes 341118805.523185
r-square 0.618626453545728
R square meaning 61% of the variation can be explained by the taxes

aluate Your Regression assumptions -L.I.N.E

L - Residiual plot - no specific pattern
I - There is no pattern in the residual plot
N - Straight Line
E - There is a constance variable

Is there evidence of a linear relationship? yes

Conclusions? As the taxes increase so does the homes assesed value

Address
2915 Wiulton Avenue
9621 Sutherland
10315 Royal Road
2419 Briggs Chaney Road
1706 Hutchison Lane
Assessed
Value Taxes You want to develop a model to predicat taxes of houses based on their
A) construct a scatter plot and assuming a linear relationship, use the le
426.7 5013 B) Interpret the meaning of the y intercept, b0 and b1 in the problem.
368.3 3696 C) Use the prediction line from part a to predict the mean taxes for a ho
310.8 3694 D) Determine the coefficient of determination r squared and interpret i
E. Perform a residual analysis on your results and evaluate all of the reg
375.5 5199 F. What conclusions can you reach concerning the relationship between
446.4 4462
Note: The data analysis tool will create all of the charts for you and pro

13409 Rippling Brook Drive 507.4 5185

8917 Whitney Street 341.8 3412

12906 Hawkshead Terrace 343.4 3930
2308 Peggy Lane 433.4 4397
112 Southwood Avenue 328.5 3269
1514 Gridley Lane 291.8 2876
1167 Kersey Road 398.1 4015

15810 Bradford Road 390.8 4725

521 Ridgeway Drive 480.0 4892

1957 Seminary Road 479.5 4887
9520 Colesville Road 389.3 3921
500 Rockford Drive 371.6 3731
10906 Fiesta Road 312.7 3100
2200 Nees Lane 342.1 3635
1314 Gresham Road 305.5 3536
10209 Grant Avenue 275.9 3426
22 Eastmoor Drive 456.6 4641
1118 Chickasaw Drive 231.8 4011
11529 Daffodil Drive 449.6 4566
13512 Sherwood Forest Drive 507.9 5944
10014 Lorain Avenue 307.0 3039 SUMMARY OUTPUT
1412 Flora Terrace 349.9 3499
728 Richmond Avenue 411.9 3377 Regression Statistics
12401 VintonTerrace 276.0 2707 Multiple R 0.786528
111 Heil Road 337.4 4308 R Square 0.618626
Adjusted R 0.605006
Standard Er 495.8104
Observatio 30

ANOVA
 df SS MS
Regression 1 11165217 11165217
Residual 28 6883182 245827.9
Total 29 18048399

Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat
Intercept 852.797 480.9901 1.773003
Assessed V 8.491508 1.259989 6.739349

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation
Predicted Taxes
Residuals
Standard Residuals
1 4476.124 536.8764 1.101993
2 3980.22 -284.2195 -0.583389
3 3491.958 202.0422 0.414712
4 4041.358 1157.642 2.376175
5 4643.406 -181.4064 -0.372355
6 5161.388 23.61163 0.048465
7 3755.195 -343.1946 -0.704441
8 3768.781 161.219 0.330918
9 4533.017 -136.0167 -0.279188
10 3642.258 -373.2575 -0.766148
11 3330.619 -454.6192 -0.933151
12 4233.266 -218.2665 -0.448014
13 4171.278 553.7215 1.136569
14 4928.721 -36.72104 -0.075374
15 4924.475 -37.47528 -0.076922
16 4158.541 -237.5412 -0.487577
17 4008.242 -277.2415 -0.569066
18 3508.092 -408.0917 -0.837649
19 3757.742 -122.742 -0.25194
20 3446.953 89.04718 0.182778
21 3195.604 230.3958 0.472911
22 4730.02 -89.01974 -0.182722
23 2821.129 1189.871 2.44233
24 4670.579 -104.5792 -0.214659
25 5165.634 778.3659 1.597674
26 3459.69 -420.6901 -0.863509
27 3823.976 -324.9758 -0.667045
28 4350.449 -973.4493 -1.998102
29 3196.453 -489.4533 -1.004652
30 3717.832 590.1681 1.211379
 cat taxes of houses based on their assessed value. A sample of 30 houses are given on the left. The taxes (in $) and the assessed value in $
ing a linear relationship, use the least-squares method to compute the regression coefficients b0 and b1.
rcept, b0 and b1 in the problem.
to predict the mean taxes for a house whose assessed value is $400,000
mination r squared and interpret its meaning in this problem.
r results and evaluate all of the regression assumptions (L.I.N.E.)
oncerning the relationship between taxes and assessed value
te all of the charts for you and provide most of your needed info for this chapters' questions.

Assessed Value Residual Plot

1500
1000
Residuals

500
0
-500200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0 550.0
-1000
-1500
Assessed Value

Assessed Value Line Fit Plot

8000
6000 Taxes
Predicted Taxes
Taxes

4000 f(x) = 8.49150843047621 x + 852.796992579193

Linear (Predicted
2000 Taxes)
0
200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0
Assessed Value
 8000
6000 Taxes
Predicted Taxes

Taxes
4000 f(x) = 8.49150843047621 x + 852.796992579193
Linear (Predicted
2000 Taxes)
F Significance F
0
45.41883 2.565E-07 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0
Assessed Value

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

Upper 95.0%
0.087108 -132.4666 1838.061 -132.4666 1838.061
2.565E-07 5.910537 11.07248 5.910537 11.07248

PROBABILITY OUTPUT
Normal Probability Plo
ndard Residuals Percentile Taxes 8000
1.666667 2707 6000
5 2876

Taxes
4000
8.333333 3039 2000
11.66667 3100 0
15 3269 0 20 40 60 80
18.33333 3377 Sample Percentile
21.66667 3412
25 3426
28.33333 3499
31.66667 3536
35 3635
38.33333 3694
41.66667 3696
45 3731
48.33333 3921
51.66667 3930
55 4011
58.33333 4015
61.66667 4308
65 4397
68.33333 4462
71.66667 4566
75 4641
78.33333 4725
81.66667 4887
85 4892
88.33333 5013
91.66667 5185
95 5199
98.33333 5944
) and the assessed value in $ thousands are given. Be sure to correctly identify the independent and dependent variables.

Plot

500.0 550.0

Plot
axes
redicted Taxes
96992579193
near (Predicted
axes)
axes
redicted Taxes
96992579193
near (Predicted
axes)

al Probability Plot

40 60 80 100 120
Sample Percentile
nt variables.
13.2 Invoices Time
Part A. 103 1.5 You want to develop a m
days, and the number o
Value of bo 0.402374804504078 173 2.0 determine which are th
Value of b1 0.012606814437998 149 2.1 A. Assuming a linear re
Part B 193 2.5 coefficients bo and b1
Mean Time 2.29339697020376 169 2.5 B. Use the prediction lin
C. Determine the coeffi
Part C 29 0.5 D. Plot the residuals aga
r-square 0.892398719325968 188 2.3 E. Looking at the chart
Part E 19 0.3 F. Based on your results
Value of turbin Watson
Statistic, D 0.0163 201 2.7

Is the data autocorrelate yes 58 1.0

Part F 110 1.5
There is a postive
autocorrelation between
Conclusions? time and invoices 83 1.2

60 0.8
25 0.4
60 1.8
190 2.9
233 3.4
289 4.1
45 1.2
70 1.8
241 3.8
Durbin-Watson Statistic 163 2.8
120 2.5
Sum of Squared Differenc 2.6710 201 3.3
Sum of Squared Residual 164.2900 135 2.0
80 1.7 SUMMARY OUTPUT
Durbin-Watson Statistic 0.0163 77 1.7
222 3.1 Regression Statistics
181 2.8 Multiple R
30 1.0 R Square
61 1.9 Adjusted R
120 2.6 Standard Er
Observatio

ANOVA

Regression
Residual
Total
Intercept
Invoices

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
 You want to develop a model to predict the amount of time it takes to process invoices. Data are collected from the past 32 w
days, and the number of invoices processed and completion time (in hours) are stored are given on the left. (be sure to first
determine which are the independent and dependent variables.)
A. Assuming a linear relationship, use the least-squares method to compute the equation of the line, which includes the regr
coefficients bo and b1
B. Use the prediction line developed in (a) to predict the mean amount of time it would take to process 150 invoices.
C. Determine the coefficient of determination, r squared and interpret its meaning.
D. Plot the residuals against the number of invoices processed and also against time.
E. Looking at the chart of invoices vs residuals there appears to be some autocorrelation. Test to see if this is true.
F. Based on your results in part e what what conclusions can you reach about the validity of the prediction?

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
0.94466858
0.89239872
0.88855582
0.33424672
30

df SS MS F Significance F
1 25.9438155682 25.94382 232.219951143736 4.3946E-15
28 3.12818443176 0.111721
29 29.072
 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%
0.4023748 0.12358249548 3.255921 0.002954615614742 0.149227538 0.655522
0.01260681 0.00082728585 15.23876 4.39460027207535E-15 0.010912196 0.014301

RESIDUAL OUTPUT PROBABILITY OUTPUT

Predicted Time ResidualsStandard Residuals Percentile Time

1.70087669 -0.2008766916 -0.611621 1.666666667 0.3
2.5833537 -0.5833537023 -1.776171 5 0.4
2.28079016 -0.1807901558 -0.550462 8.333333333 0.5
2.83548999 -0.335489991 -1.021486 11.66666667 0.8
2.53292644 -0.0329264445 -0.100253 15 1
0.76797242 -0.2679724232 -0.815911 18.33333333 1
2.77245592 -0.4724559188 -1.438514 21.66666667 1.2
0.64190428 -0.3419042788 -1.041016 25 1.2
2.93634451 -0.2363445065 -0.719612 28.33333333 1.5
1.13357004 -0.1335700419 -0.406688 31.66666667 1.5
1.78912439 -0.2891243927 -0.880314 35 1.7
1.4487404 -0.2487404029 -0.757354 38.33333333 1.7
1.15878367 -0.3587836708 -1.09241 41.66666667 1.8
0.71754517 -0.3175451655 -0.966848 45 1.8
1.15878367 0.64121632922 1.952349 48.33333333 2
2.79766955 0.10233045228 0.311571 51.66666667 2
3.33976257 0.06023743144 0.183408 55 2.1
4.04574418 0.05425582291 0.165196 58.33333333 2.3
0.96968145 0.23031854579 0.701264 61.66666667 2.5
1.28485182 0.51514818484 1.568502 65 2.5
3.44061708 0.35938291594 1.094234 68.33333333 2.5
2.45728556 0.3427144421 1.043483 71.66666667 2.7
1.91519254 0.58480746294 1.780597 75 2.8
2.93634451 0.36365549346 1.107243 78.33333333 2.8
2.10429475 -0.1042947536 -0.317552 81.66666667 2.9
1.41091996 0.28908004046 0.880179 85 3.1
1.37309952 0.32690048377 0.995333 88.33333333 3.3
3.20108761 -0.1010876097 -0.307787 91.66666667 3.4
2.68420822 0.11579178222 0.352558 95 3.8
0.78057924 0.21942076236 0.668083 98.33333333 4.1
 collected from the past 32 working
on the left. (be sure to first

line, which includes the regression

rocess 150 invoices.

o see if this is true.

prediction?

Invoices Residual Plot

1
0.5
Residuals

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
-0.5
-1
Invoices

Invoices Line Fit Plot

5.0
4.0
3.0 Time
f(x) = 0.012606814437998 x + 0.402374804504079
Time

2.0 Linear (Time)

1.0 Predicted Time
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Invoices
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
0.149228 0.655522
0.010912 0.014301

Normal Probability Plot

5
4
3
Time 2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Sample Percentile
13.3 Team
Part A. Baltimore
Value of bo 147.7 Boston
Value of b1 -16.389 Chicago White Sox
Part B. Cleveland
Mean Number of Wins 73.9495 Detroit
Part C Houston
r-square 0.528231831029058 Kansas City
Part D Los Angeles Angels
Evaluate Your Regression Assumptions

L - Residiual plot - no specific pattern

I - There is no pattern in the residual
plot
N - Straight Line
E - There is a constance variable Minnesota
Part E New York Yankees
Null Hypothesis
Ho: b1=0 Oakland
Alternative Hypothesis H1: b1/=0 Seattle
Test Statistic Value Tampa Bay
Is there evidence of a linear relationship? Yes Texas
Part F Toronto
Confidence Interval of the mean Lower -22.3841 Arizona
Confidence Interval of the mean Upper -10.3930 Atlanta
Part G Chicago Cubs
Confidence Interval of the indiividual Lower 53.4380 Cincinnati
Confidence Interval of the individual Upper 94.4701 Colorado
Part H Los Angeles Dodge
Confidence Interval of the slope Lower 49.1685 Miami
Confidence Interval of the slope Upper 98.7396 Milwaukee
New York Mets
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
San Diego
San Francisco
St. Louis
Washington
E.R.A. Wins
3.66 98
4.41 71
4.68 73
4.03 85
4.35 90
4.46 70
3.85 89
3.89 98
Normal Probability Plot
120 20

100 15

10
80

Residuals
5
60
Wins

4.80 70
0
4.10 84 40 3.20 3
-5
20
3.53 88
-10
3.42 87 0
3.86 77 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -15
4.77 67 Sample Percentile
4.23 83
4.58 64
3.69 79
4.36 73
3.78 76
5.05 66
E.R.A. Line Fit Plot
3.81 94 150
4.16 77 Wins
100
Predicted Wins
Wins

4.06 82 f(x) = − 16.388513061449 x + 147.702360774518

50 Linear (Predicted
3.81 79 Wins)
4.24 73 0
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50
3.90 88 SUMMARY OUTPUT
E.R.A.
3.56 77
3.79 88 Regression Statistics
3.72 90 Multiple R 0.726796
3.43 96 R Square 0.528232
Adjusted R 0.511383
Standard Er 6.789421
Observatio 30

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 1445.172 1445.172 31.35119 5.409E-06
Residual 28 1290.695 46.09624
Total 29 2735.867

Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.0%
Intercept 147.7024 11.96529 12.34424 7.622E-13 123.1926 172.2121 123.1926
E.R.A. -16.38851 2.926932 -5.599213 5.409E-06 -22.38406 -10.39297 -22.38406

RESIDUAL OUTPUT PROBABILITY OUTPUT

Observation
Predicted WinsResiduals
Standard Residuals Percentile Wins
1 87.7204 10.2796 1.54086 1.666667 64
2 75.42902 -4.429018 -0.663888 5 66
3 71.00412 1.99588 0.299173 8.333333 67
4 81.65665 3.343347 0.501151 11.66667 70
5 76.41233 13.58767 2.036724 15 70
6 74.60959 -4.609593 -0.690955 18.33333 71
7 84.60659 4.393415 0.658551 21.66667 73
8 83.95104 14.04896 2.105868 25 73
9 69.0375 0.962502 0.144274 28.33333 73
10 80.50946 3.490543 0.523215 31.66667 76
11 89.85091 -1.85091 -0.277442 35 77
12 91.65365 -4.653646 -0.697558 38.33333 77
13 84.4427 -7.4427 -1.115624 41.66667 77
14 69.52915 -2.529153 -0.379108 45 79
15 78.37895 4.621049 0.692672 48.33333 79
16 72.64297 -8.642971 -1.295538 51.66667 82
17 87.22875 -8.228748 -1.233448 55 83
18 76.24844 -3.248444 -0.486926 58.33333 84
19 85.75378 -9.753781 -1.462043 61.66667 85
20 64.94037 1.05963 0.158833 65 87
21 85.26213 8.737874 1.309764 68.33333 88
22 79.52615 -2.526146 -0.378657 71.66667 88
23 81.165 0.835002 0.125163 75 88
24 85.26213 -6.262126 -0.938662 78.33333 89
25 78.21507 -5.215065 -0.781712 81.66667 90
26 83.78716 4.21284 0.631484 85 90
27 89.35925 -12.35925 -1.852591 88.33333 94
28 85.5899 2.410104 0.361263 91.66667 96
29 86.73709 3.262908 0.489094 95 98
30 91.48976 4.510239 0.676062 98.33333 98
 E.R.A. Residual Plot
20

15

10
Residuals

0
3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4.40 4.60 4.80 5.00 5.20
-5

-10

-15
E.R.A.

Fit Plot
Wins
Predicted Wins
61449 x + 147.702360774518
Linear (Predicted
Wins)

5.50
Confidence Interval Estimate and Prediction Interval

Data
X Value 4.5
Confidence Level 95%

Intermediate Calculations
Sample Size 30
Degrees of Freedom 28
t Value 2.0484
Sample Mean 81.0667
 Sum of Squared Difference 2735.8667
Standard Error of the Estimat 6.7894
h Statistic 2.1761
Predicted Y (YHat) 73.9541
Upper 95.0%
172.2121 For Average Y
-10.39297 Interval Half Width 20.5160
Confidence Interval Lower Lim 53.4380
Confidence Interval Upper Lim 94.4701

For Individual Response Y

Interval Half Width 24.7856
Prediction Interval Lower Limi 49.1685
Prediction Interval Upper Limi 98.7396
Chi-Square Test

Observed Frequencies
Hotel Calculations
Choose Again? Beachcomber Windsurfer Total fo-fe
Yes 12 108 120 -2.4000 2.4000
No 24 156 180 2.4000 -2.4000
Total 36 264 300

Expected Frequencies
Hotel
Choose Again? Beachcomber Windsurfer Total (fo-fe)^2/fe
Yes 14.4000 105.6000 120 0.4000 0.0545
No 21.6000 158.4000 180 0.2667 0.0364
Total 36 264 300

Data
Level of Significance 0.05
Number of Rows 2
Number of Columns 2
Degrees of Freedom 1

Results
Critical Value 3.8415
Chi-Square Test Statistic 0.7576
p-Value 0.3841
Do not reject the null hypothesis

Expected frequency assumption

is met.
Chi-Square Test

Observed Frequencies
Column variable Calculations
Row variable C1 C2 C3 C4 Total fo - fe
R1 0 #DIV/0!
R2 0 #DIV/0!
Total 0 0 0 0 0

Expected Frequencies
Column variable
Row variable C1 C2 C3 C4 Total (fo - fe)^2/fe
R1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
R2 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Total #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Data
Level of Significance 0.05
Number of Rows 2
Number of Columns 4
Degrees of Freedom 3

Results
Critical Value 7.8147
Chi-Square Test Statistic #DIV/0!
p-Value #DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

Expected frequency assumption

#DIV/0!
 Calculations
fo - fe
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

(fo - fe)^2/fe
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Marascuilo Procedure

Level of Significance 0.05

Square Root of Critical Value 2.79548348291511

Group Sample Proportions

1: C1 #DIV/0!
2: C2 #DIV/0!
3: C3 #DIV/0!
4: C4 #DIV/0!

MARASCUILO TABLE
Proportions Absolute Differences Critical Range
| Group 1 - Group 2 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
| Group 1 - Group 3 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
| Group 1 - Group 4 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

| Group 2 - Group 3 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

| Group 2 - Group 4 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

| Group 3 - Group 4 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Chi-Square Test

Observed Frequencies
Column variable
Row variable C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Total
R1 0
R2 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

Expected Frequencies
Column variable
Row variable C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 Total
R1 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
R2 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Total #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Data
Level of Significance 0.05
Number of Rows 2
Number of Columns 5
Degrees of Freedom 4

Results
Critical Value 9.4877
Chi-Square Test Statistic #DIV/0!
p-Value #DIV/0!
#DIV/0!

Expected frequency assumption

#DIV/0!
 Calculations
fo - fe
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

(fo - fe)^2/fe
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
#DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Marascuilo Procedure

Level of Significance 0.05

Square Root of Critical Value 3.08021574516805

Group Sample Proportions

1: C1 #DIV/0!
2: C2 #DIV/0!
3: C3 #DIV/0!
4: C4 #DIV/0!
5: C5 #DIV/0!

MARASCUILO TABLE
Proportions Absolute Differences Critical Range
| Group 1 - Group 2 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
| Group 1 - Group 3 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
| Group 1 - Group 4 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
| Group 1 - Group 5 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

| Group 2 - Group 3 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

| Group 2 - Group 4 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
| Group 2 - Group 5 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

| Group 3 - Group 4 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

| Group 3 - Group 5 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

| Group 4 - Group 5 | #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

 Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test
Sample Value Rank
In-Aisle 154 1 Data
Special Fro 160 2 Level of Significance 0.05
In-Aisle 164 3
In-Aisle 186 4 Population 1 Sample
Special Fro 189 5.5 Sample Size 10
In-Aisle 189 5.5 Sum of Ranks 131.5
In-Aisle 192 7 Population 2 Sample
In-Aisle 202 8 Sample Size 10
Special Fro 215 9 Sum of Ranks 78.5
In-Aisle 219 10
In-Aisle 220 11 Intermediate Calculations
Special Fro 224 12 Total Sample Size 20
In-Aisle 236 13 T1 Test Statistic 131.5
Special Fro 243 14 T1 Mean 105
Special Fro 248 15 Standard Error of T1 13.2288
In-Aisle 261 16 Z Test Statistic 2.0032
Special Fro 273 17
Special Fro 280 18.5 Two-Tail Test
Special Fro 285 18.5 Lower Critical Value -1.9600
Special Fro 317 20 Upper Critical Value 1.9600
p-Value 0.0452
Reject the null hypothesis

Conclusion may be invalid due to sample sizes.

Use table method to evaluate test statistic.
 Sample Value Rank In-aisle Front Endcap Expert
In-aisle 29.59 1 29.60 33.21 31.23 29.83
In-aisle 29.6 2 29.59 31.80 31.14 29.69
Expert 29.61 3 30.11 30.54 30.04 29.61
Expert 29.69 4 29.83 31.39 30.87 29.72
Expert 29.72 5 30.32 33.05 33.08 31.41
In-aisle 29.83 6.5
Expert 29.83 6.5
Endcap 30.04 8
In-aisle 30.11 9
In-aisle 30.32 10
Front 30.54 11
Endcap 30.87 12
Endcap 31.14 13
Endcap 31.23 14
Front 31.39 15
Expert 31.41 16
Front 31.8 17
Front 33.05 18
Endcap 33.08 19
Front 33.21 20
Kruskal-Wallis Rank Test

Data Calculations
Level of Significance 0.05 Group Sample Size Sum of Ranks
In-aisle 5 28.5
Intermediate Calculations Front 5 81
Sum of Squared Ranks/Sample Size 2345.85 Endcap 5 66
Sum of Sample Sizes 15
Number of Groups 3

Test Result
H Test Statistic 69.2925
Critical Value 5.9915
p-Value 0.0000
Reject the null hypothesis
tions
Mean Rank
5.7
16.2
13.2
Kruskal-Wallis Rank Test

Data Calculations
Level of Significance 0.05 Group Sample Size Sum of Ranks
In-aisle 5 28.5
Intermediate Calculations Front 5 81
Sum of Squared Ranks/Sample Size 2583.9 Endcap 5 66
Sum of Sample Sizes 20 Expert 5 34.5
Number of Groups 4

Test Result
H Test Statistic 10.8257
Critical Value 7.8147
p-Value 0.0127
Reject the null hypothesis
tions
Mean Rank
5.7
16.2
13.2
6.9
Observation X Predicted Y Y Residuals
1 1.7 2.31725486587
2 1.6 2.1098375742
3 2.8 4.59884507431
4 5.6 10.4065292412
5 1.3 1.48758569917
6 2.2 3.35434132425
7 1.3 1.48758569917
8 1.1 1.07275111581
9 3.2 5.42851424102
10 1.5 1.90242028252
11 5.2 9.57686007454
12 4.6 8.33235632448
13 5.8 10.8213638246
14 3.0 5.01367965766
3.7 1.3827451341
3.9 1.7901624258
6.7 2.1011549257
9.5 -0.9065292412
3.4 1.9124143008
5.6 2.2456586757
3.7 2.2124143008
2.7 1.6272488842
5.5 0.071485759
2.9 0.9975797175
10.7 1.1231399255
7.6 -0.7323563245
11.8 0.9786361754
4.1 -0.9136796577
Durbin-Watson Statistic

Sum of Squared Difference of Residuals 30.9549

Sum of Squared Residuals 31.1869

Durbin-Watson Statistic 0.9926

Profiled Customers Annual Sales
3.7 5.7
3.6 5.9
2.8 6.7
5.6 9.5
3.3 5.4
2.2 3.5
3.3 6.2
3.1 4.7
3.2 6.1
3.5 4.9
5.2 10.7
4.6 7.6
5.8 11.8
3 4.1
Simple Linear Regression

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.9208
R Square 0.8479
Adjusted R Square 0.8352
Standard Error 0.9993
Observations 14

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 66.7854 66.7854 66.8792 0.0000
Residual 12 11.9832 0.9986
Total 13 78.7686

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept -1.2088 0.9949 -1.2151 0.2477 -3.3765 0.9588
Profiled Customers 2.0742 0.2536 8.1780 0.0000 1.5216 2.6268
 Calculations
b1, b0 Coefficients 2.0742 -1.2088
b1, b0 Standard Error 0.2536 0.9949
R Square, Standard Error 0.8479 0.9993
F, Residual df 66.8792 12.0000
Regression SS, Residual SS 66.7854 11.9832

Confidence level 95%

t Critical Value 2.1788
Half Width b0 2.1676
Half Width b1 0.5526

Lower 95% Upper 95%

-3.3765 0.95881
1.5216 2.62678
Confidence Interval Estimate and Prediction Interval

Data
X Value 4
Confidence Level 95%

Intermediate Calculations
Sample Size 14
Degrees of Freedom 12
t Value 2.1788
Sample Mean 3.7786
Sum of Squared Difference 15.5236
Standard Error of the Estimate 0.9993
h Statistic 0.0746
Predicted Y (YHat) 7.0879

For Average Y
Interval Half Width 0.5946
Confidence Interval Lower Limit 6.4932
Confidence Interval Upper Limit 7.6825

For Individual Response Y

Interval Half Width 2.2570
Prediction Interval Lower Limit 4.8308
Prediction Interval Upper Limit 9.3449