Solutions Manual to accompany Statistics for

Business: Decision Making and Analysis 0321123913

To download the complete and accurate content document, go to:

https://testbankbell.com/download/solutions-manual-to-accompany-statistics-for-busin
ess-decision-making-and-analysis-0321123913/
Solutions Manual to accompany Statistics for Business: Decision Making and Analysis 03211239

Chapter 10 Association between Random Variables

Mix and Match
1. e. Positive dependence increases the variance of a sum.
2. g
3. h. The covariance is zero if the random variables are uncorrelated; hence, the variance of the sum is the sum of
the variances.
4. j
5. i
6. b
7. f
8. c
9. a
10. d
True/False
11. False. If the costs move simultaneously, they should be treated as dependent random variables.
12. False. If the price of one goes up when the other goes down, the overall costs stay roughly about the same,
reducing the variation. Using random variables, a negative covariance implies that Var(aX + bY) < a2Var(X) +
b2Var(Y).
13. False. The mean and variance match, but this is not enough to imply that all of the probabilities match and that
p(x) = p(y).
14. False. Matching means and variances do not imply independence either.
15. False. This implies that X and Y have no covariance, but they need not be independent.
16. True. If X and Y are independent, then Var(½X + ½Y) = ¼[Var(X) + Var(Y)]
17. True. E(X1) = E(X2) = µ.
18. False. Executives believe that the events are independent; high sales one weekend do not affect the level of
sales the next weekend.

19. False. The SD of the total is 2 times σ. The variance of the total sales is 2 times σ 2 .
20. False. The variances are the same. If X1 and X2 are iid, then Var(X1 – X2) = Var(X1 + X2).
21. False. If the effect were simply to introduce dependence (but not otherwise alter the means and SDs), then the
expected difference would remain zero.
22. True. The variance of a difference (which is a weighted sum) depends on the covariance.
Think About It
23. Negative covariance produces smaller variance for the portfolio, and hence less risk.
24. Not necessarily. The variance depends on the covariance among the investments.
25. The covariance between Y and itself is its variance. The covariance between X and Y is the expected value
E(X−µx)(Y − µy). If the two random variables are the same, then E(Y−µy)(Y − µy) = E(Y − µy)2 = Var(Y). The
correlation is 1.

71

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters
72 Chapter 10 Association between Random Variables

26. No. The Sharpe ratio is useful for comparing portfolios with different investments, not for deciding how much
to invest in any one. These two alternatives have the same Sharpe ratio, just as we found that S(X) = S(2X) in
this chapter.
27. No. The covariance depends on the units used to measure the investments. If we track the prices in pennies, say,
rather than dollars, we can make the covariance get very large.
28. Yes. You could predict the price of one from the other with perfect accuracy. The joint distribution of the two
would be concentrated along the positive diagonal.
29. Not likely. Sales during the weekend would probably look rather different than those during the week.
30. In either case, we should predict 0 for the change tomorrow, the expected value. Knowing the change today has
no effect on the distribution tomorrow if the changes are independent.
31. (a) Positively correlated. It seems unlikely that a homeowner would spend a lot for labor but scrimp for the
appliances. An elaborate project would generate higher costs in both categories, unless there are budget
constraints.
(b) A budget constraint may produce negative association or independence. If the family spends a lot on
appliances, for example, then they will not have much left over for labor.
32. The positive dependence produces more variation in the total amounts paid for accidents. Some accidents have
very low payouts with little damage to property or person, whereas others have high payouts in both. Positive
dependence does not affect the expected total paid.
You Do It
33. (a) E(2X – 100) = 2E(X) – 100 = 1,900
Var(2X – 100) = 4Var(X) = 4(200)2 = 160,000; SD(2X – 100) = 400
(b) E(0.5Y) = 0.5E(Y) = 1,000
Var(0.5Y) = 0.25Var(Y) = 0.25(600)2 = 90,000; SD(0.5Y) = 300
(c) E(X + Y) = E(X) + E(Y) = 3,000
Var(X + Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y) = 2002 + 6002=400,000; SD(X + Y) ≈ 632.5
(d) E(X – Y) = E(X) – E(Y) = –1,000
Var(X – Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y) = 2002 + 6002=400,000; SD(X + Y) ≈ 632.5
34. (a) E(8X) = 8E(X) = 800
Var(8X) = 64Var(X) = 64(16)2 = 16,384; SD(8X) = 128
(b) E(3Y – 2) = 3E(Y) – 2 = –152
Var(3Y – 2) = 9Var(Y) = 9(25)2 = 5,625; SD(3Y – 12) = 75
(c) E(X + Y)/2= 0.5E(X) + 0.5E(Y) = 25
Var[(X+Y)/2] = ¼[Var(X)+Var(Y)] =(162 + 252)/4 = 220.25; SD((X + Y)/2) ≈ 14.84
(d) E(X – 2Y) = E(X) – 2 E(Y) = 200
Var(X – 2Y) = Var(X) + 4Var(Y) = 162 + 4(252) = 2,756; SD(X – 2Y) ≈ 52.5
35. All of the calculated expected values remain the same. Only the variances and standard deviations change. Unless both
X and Y appear, the variance is the same.
(a) Unchanged
(b) Unchanged
(c) Var(X + Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y) + 2Cov(X, Y)=2002 + 6002 + 2 × 12,500=425,000; SD(X + Y) ≈ 651.9
(d) Var(X – Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y) – 2Cov(X, Y)=2002 + 6002 – 2 × 12,500=375,000; SD(X + Y) ≈ 612.4
36. All of the calculated expected values remain the same. Only the variances and standard deviations change.
Unless both X and Y appear, the variance is the same. The covariance between X and Y is obtained from ρσxσy =
0.5(16)(25) = 200.
(a) Unchanged
(b) Unchanged
(c) Var((X + Y)/2) = ¼[Var(X) + Var(Y) + 2Cov(X, Y)] = (162 + 252 + 400)/4 = 320.25; SD ≈ 17.90
(d) Var(X – 2Y) = Var(X) + 4Var(Y) – 4Cov(X, Y) = 162 + 4(252) – 800 = 81,956; SD(X – 4Y) ≈ 44.23

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Chapter 10 Association between Random Variables 73

37. From the formula for the variance of a sum, the covariance is half of the difference, Cov(X, Y) = ½ [Var(X + Y)
– Var(X) – Var(Y)]= ½ (8 – 10) = −1. The correlation is Cov(X, Y)/[SD(X)SD(Y)] = −1/5 = −0.2.
38. Zero. Treat a constant as a random variable with no variance. Then Cov(X, (c)= E(X−µx)(c – E((c)) = 0.
39. (a) These are dependent, because for example we can write Y = 60 – X. Once we know X, Y is known as well
from this formula.
(b) The covariance lowers the variance. After all, X + Y = 60 and so the variance is 0.
40. (a) These are dependent because the sum of the two must equal 24 hours. For example, we can write Y = 24 – X,
so once we know X, Y is known as well.
(b) Note that X and Y have the same variance, Var(Y) = Var(24 – X) = Var(X). Call this common variance σ .
2

Now work with the random variables directly rather than directly using the covariance. You get the same
answer, but this method is easier. The difference is X – Y = X – (24 – X) = 2X – 24. Hence, the variance of the
difference is 4 σ and the SD is 2σ.
2

41. (a) Let X1 and X2 denote the deliveries for the two. Both drivers are said to operate independently. We assume,
given nothing else, that the number of deliveries is comparable as well.
(b) E(X1 + X2) = 6 + 6 = 12 deliveries
SD(X1 + X2) = 2 2 + 2 2 = 8 ≈ 2.83 deliveries
(c) E(X1 + 1.5X2) = 6 + 1.5 × 6 = 15 hours
(d) SD(X1 + 1.5X2) = 2 2 + (1.52 )(2 2 ) = 13 ≈ 3.61 hours
(e) Yes. It suggests that the counts of the number of deliveries are negatively correlated and not independent, as
if the two drivers split a fixed number of deliveries each day.
42. (a) Let X1 and X2 denote the winnings of the two players. We can assume these are independent since they play
at different sites.
(b) E(X1 + X2) = 300 + 300 = $600
SD(X1 + X2) = 1002 + 1002 = 20,000 ≈ $141.42
(c) E(X1 – X2) = 300 – 300 = $0
SD(X1 – X2) = $141.42 (same as in part b)
(d) First, we may expect the quality of the other players to be better than usual, though this may not be the case.
If so, then the mean winnings for each may fall and the variance increase. Second, by playing at the same table,
for one to win means that the other must lose. This would lead to a negative correlation between X1 and X2.
43. (a) E(X) = 1(0.50) + 2(0.50) = 1.5 sandwiches
Var(X) = (1 − 1.5)2(0.50) + (2 − 1.5)2(0.5) = 0.25 sandwiches2
(b) E(Y) = 1(0.60) + 2(0.35) + 3(0.05) = 1.45 drinks
Var(Y) = (1 − 1.45)2 (0.60) + (2 − 1.45)2 (0.35) + (3 − 1.45)2 (0.05) = 0.3475 drinks2
(c) E(XY) = 1(0.4) + 2(0.2 + 0.1) + 4(0.25) + 6(0.05) = 2.3
Cov(X, Y) = 2.3 – 1.5(1.45) = 0.125 sandwich-drinks
Corr(X, Y) = Cov(X, Y)/(σxσy) = 0.125/(0.5 × 0.589) ≈ 0.424
(d) Customers who buy more drinks also buy more sandwiches. The two are positively related, so those who
buy more of one also purchase more of the other.
(e) E(1.5X + 1Y) = 1.5(1.5) + 1(1.45) = $3.70
Var(1.5X + 1Y) = 1.52Var(X) + Var(Y) + 2(1.5)(1)Cov(X, Y) = 2.25(0.25) + 0.3475 + 3(0.125) = 1.285 $2
Hence, SD(1.5X + 1Y) ≈ $1.13.
(f) E(Y/X) = 1(0.40 + 0.25) + 2(0.1) + 0.5(0.2) + 1.5(0.05) = 1.025
The ratio of means, µy/µx = 1.45/1.5 ≈ 0.97, is less than 1. These do not agree. In general, for positive random
variables, E(Y/X) ≥ E(Y)/E(X).
44. (a) E(X) = P(X = 1)= 0.65 policies
Var(X) = (0 − 0.65)2 (0.35) + (1 − 0.65)2 (0.65) = 0.2275 policies2
(b) E(Y) = P(Y = 1) = 0.65 policies
Var(Y) = (0 − 0.65)2 (0.35) + (1 − 0.65)2 (0.65) = 0.2275 policies2
(c) E(XY) = 0.4 = P(X = 1 and Y = 1) = p(1, 1), the probability that both X and Y are 1. All of the other terms
drop out of the sum.

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

74 Chapter 10 Association between Random Variables

(d) Cov(X, Y) = E(XY) – µxµy = 0.4 – (0.65)(0.65) = –0.0225. Notice that E(XY) – µx µy = p(1, 1) –px(1) py(1) =
0 if X and Y are independent. These nearly are. The correlation is also small:
Corr(X, Y) = Cov(X, Y)/(σxσy) ≈ –0.0225/(0.2275) = –0.0989.
(e) The small but negative correlation indicates that the agent is not doing so well selling both types of policies.
The sales of the policies are almost independent.
(f) E(750X + 300Y) = 750E(X) + 300E(Y) = 750(0.65) + 300(0.65) = $682.5
Var(750X + 300Y) = 7502Var(X) + 3002Var(Y) + 2(750)(300) Cov(X, Y)
= 7502(0.2275)+ 3002(0.2275) − 2(750)(300)(-0.0225) = 158,568.75$2
SD(750X + 300Y) ≈ $398
45. (a) From the numbers given for the 2004 to 2005 season, we get
E(X) = 0(689/1376) + 2(687/1376) ≈ 0.999
Var(X) = (0 − 0.999)2 (689/1376) + (2 − 0.999)2(687/1376) ≈ 1.000
(b) E(Y) = 0(200/308) + 3(108/308) ≈ 1.052
Var(Y) = (0 − 1.052)2(200/308) + (3 – 1.052)2(108/308) ≈ 2.049
(c) Let X1, X2 … X20 denote the 20 attempted two-point shots and let Y1, Y2 , … ,Y5 denote the three-point
attempts. Then the total number of points scored is
T = X1 + X2 + … + X20 + Y1 + … + Y5
Assuming the X’s are identically distributed and the Y’s are identically distributed,
E(T) = 20µx + 5µy ≈ 20(0.999) + 5(1.052) = 25.24
(d) To compare, we need the standard deviation of the points scored from 2 and 3-point baskets. If we assume
independence of the shots, then
Var(T) = 20Var(X1) + 5Var(Y1) ≈ 20(1.000) + 5(2.049) = 30.245
where we get the variances of these from the calculations in parts a and b.
Hence, we can see that the SD(T) ≈ 5.5. His scoring in this game is within 1 SD of his season performance, so it
seems typical from what we are given.
46. (a) E(X) = 0(1/9) + 3(8/9) ≈ 2.67 points
Var(X) ≈ (0 – 2.67)2(1/9) + (3 − 2.67)2(8/9) = 0.8889
(b) E(Y) = 0(4/15) + 3 (11/15) = 2.2 points
Var(Y) = (0 – 2.2)2(4/15) + (3 − 2.2)2(11/15) ≈ 1.760
(c) Let X1 , X2, and X3 denote the three shorter kicks, and Y1 and Y2 denote the longer kicks. Then the total
number of points scored (call it T) is T = X1 + X2 + X3 +Y1 + Y2 and E(T) = 3(2.67) + 2(2.2) = 12.41 points.
(d) We need the standard deviation of T to see if this score is close to his usual total of 6.6. If we assume the
outcomes are independent, then
Var(T) = 3Var(X1) + 2Var(Y1) ≈ 3(0.8889) + 2(1.760) ≈ 6.1867
and SD(T) ≈ 2.487 points. The expected total in this game is (12.41 − 6.6)/2.487 ≈ 2.34 standard deviations
higher than his typical total for the season. That’s a high score for him.
47. (a) No. Larger homes with more occupants would typically use more of both. Expect positive dependence.
(b) The total cost is T = 0.09X + 10Y . Hence the expected total cost is
E(0.09X + 10Y) = 0.09(12,000) + 10(85) = $1,930
(c) The covariance between X and Y is ρσxσy = 0.35(2,000)(15) = 10,500 KWH−MCF
Using this, we can find that
Var(T) = 0.092Var(X) + 102Var(Y) + 2(0.09)(10)Cov(X, Y)
= 0.092(2,000)2 + 102(15)2 + 2(0.09)(10)10,500 = 73,800 $2
so that SD(T) ≈ $272.
(d) The costs for these homes are only about (1,930 − 1,640)/272 = 1.1 SDs above the national figure for 2001.
That was a long time ago, so these numbers seem atypical.
48. Let X denote sales under the new program and Y the standard.
(a) E(X − Y) = 52,000 − 45,000 = $7,000.
If X and Y are independent, then
Var(X – Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y) = 2(6,000)2 = 72,000,000 $2 and SD(X – Y) ≈ $8,485
The SD is larger than the gap between the expected levels of sales, so there is a good chance it would seem,
from what we are given, that the sales representative from the standard program might sell more.
(b) If ρ = 0.8, then the expected difference remains $7,000 but the variance of the difference becomes

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Chapter 10 Association between Random Variables 75

Cov(X, Y) = ρσxσy = 0.8(6,000)2.

Var(X – Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y) – 2Cov(X, Y) = 2(6000)2 – 2(0.8)(6000)2 = 2(6,000)2(1 – 0.8) = 14,400,000 $2
which is only 20% of the variance when X and Y are independent. Hence, if the two are highly positively
correlated, SD(X − Y) ≈ $3,795. Using this new scale, the expected gap between the new and standard programs
grows to 7,000/3,795 = 1.84 standard deviations of separation. With the positive dependence, the expected
difference in sales is larger relative to the variation in sales. This should make the difference more consistent
and recognizable.
49. Let X denote the number of weeks of electrical work, and Y denote the number of weeks of plumbing work.
(a) E(X + Y) = 64 + 120 = 184 weeks
(b) Positive, because delays or extra time for one type of work suggest similar problems in the other type of
work as well.
(c) Var(X + Y) = 62 + 152 + 2ρ(6)(15) = 387 weeks2 and SD(X + Y) ≈ 19.7 weeks.
The covariance between X and Y is ρσxσy = 63.
(d) Less. The larger ρ, the more variable the amount of work, making the bidding process less accurate and
harder for the firm to estimate its profits.
(e) E(200X + 300Y) = 200(64) + 300(120) = $48,800
Var(200X + 300Y) = 2002Var(X) + 3002Var(Y) + 2(200)(300)Cov(X, Y)
= 40,000(36) + 90,000(225) + 120,000(63) = 29,250,000 $2
SD(200X + 300Y) ≈ $5,408.
(f) The firm is unlikely to make $60,000 because this amount is more than 2 SDs above the mean.
50. Let Y denote the sales in the men’s store and X denote the sales in the women’s store. All of the calculations
shown here are in thousands of dollars.
(a) E(X + Y) = 675 + 800 = $1,475 thousand
(b) We expect positive dependence because sales at both stores would be hurt if the mall was doing poorly, and
sales would grow at both if the mall was doing well. The mall might do poorly in general if the local economy
were poor, for example.
(c) The dependence might be much less because of the mix of two opposing factors. Both stores are in the same
mall, and so might be expected to both perform similarly if the mall does well or poorly. However, the stores
both compete directly for the same customers and this factor would make the sales negatively related.
(d) Var(X + Y) = Var(X) + Var(Y) + 2 Cov(X, Y) = 1252 + 1002 + 2(100)(125)(0.4) = 35,625 thousand $2
SD(X + Y) ≈ $189 thousand
(e) The costs for rent at the two stores is $30/sq.ft. × 5,000 sq.ft. = $150,000. The net in excess of rental costs
would be E(X + Y – 150) = $1,325 thousand
with the same standard deviation as found previously.
(f) Removing these other costs implies the expected profit is 1,325−750 = $575,000 annually with SD of
$189,000. Profits are more than 3 SDs above zero, so it’s unlikely under these conditions for the company to be
losing money.

4M Real Money
(a) By splitting the investment, the investor obtains a more steady flow of returns (i.e., less variance than if the
money is placed all into one or the other.
(b) The Sharpe ratio is useful because it combines the mean and variance of the investment. It takes account not only
of the growth in most stocks, but penalizes this growth for the cost of borrowing (the risk-free rate and for the
variability of the returns. A stock with smaller average return may have a higher Sharpe ratio than a stock with
higher average return if it has smaller variance.
(c) No. The observed correlation in the returns is 0.3044. This seems too large to think of modeling the percentage
changes as independent.
(d) The observed means and variances are
Mean Var
Citigroup X 0.1066 5.0738
Exxon Y 0.0652 2.2310
The Sharpe ratios for Citigroup and Exxon are

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Solutions Manual to accompany Statistics for Business: Decision Making and Analysis 03211239

76 Chapter 10 Association between Random Variables

S(Citi) = (0.1066 − 0.015)/ 5.0738 ≈ 0.0407

S(Exxon) = (0.0652 − 0.015)/ 2.231 ≈ 0.0336
Using the correlation, the covariance in the data is 1.024. The expected percentage change with the equal division is
E(0.5X + 0.5Y) = (0.1066 + 0.0652)/2 = 0.0859
The variance of the 50-50 split in these two is then
Var(0.5X + 0.5Y) = 0.25(Var(X) + Var(Y) + 2 Cov(X, Y))
= 0.25(5.0738 + 2.2310 + 2 × 1.024) = 2.3382
The Sharpe ratio is then (0.0859 − 0.015)/ 2.3382 ≈ 0.046. This is similar, but not so high as the Sharpe ratio for
the mix of IBM and Microsoft in the chapter.
(e) The mean and SD for the new column should match those used in part d. That is, the mean of the average column
should be 0.0859 and the SD should be 1.5291.
(f) For the revised mix, the expected value is larger (Citi has a higher average return)
E(0.75X + 0.25Y) = 0.75 × 0.1066 + 0.25 × 0.0652 = 0.09625
but the variance is also larger (Citi is more variable)
Var(0.75X + 0.25Y) = 0.752Var(X) + 0.252Var(Y) + 2 (0.75)(0.25)Cov(X, Y)
= 0.752(5.0738) + 0.252(2.231) + 2(0.75)(0.25)1.024
≈ 3.377
As a result, the Sharpe ratio is slightly smaller: (0.09625 − 0.015)/ 3.377 = 0.044
(g) By dividing the investment between the two stocks, the investor benefits from the higher average return on stock
in Citigroup as well as the low variance on returns earned by Exxon. The combination outperforms, in terms of the
Sharpe ratio, either concentrated investment. The precise mixture is less important; splitting 50-50 works well, but
even the ¾ − ¼ mixture considered in part f does okay.

4M Planning Operating Costs

(a) No. The amounts of the fuels that are used are random. To help in planning, we’ll figure out just how high or low
the total costs might be.
(b) The marginal distributions are given in the tables of the exercise. For example,
Kilowatt Hours
x 200 300 400 500
P(X = x) = p(x) 0.05 0.25 0.40 0.30
(c) T = 100X + 12Y gives the total cost in dollars for energy.
(d) Not likely. A severe winter, for example, would probably mean more electricity for circulating heat in the stores
along with the increase in the use of natural gas.
(e) E(X) = 0.05 × 200 + 0.25 × 300 + 0.40 × 400 + 0.30 × 500 = 395 mkwh
Var(X) = 0.05(200 − 395)2 + 0.25(300 − 395)2 + 0.40(400 − 395)2 + 0.30(500 − 395)2 = 7,475 mkwh2
(f) E(Y) = 0.05 × 600 + 0.25800 + 0.4 × 1000 + 0.3 × 1200 = 990 mcf
Var(Y) = 0.05(600 − 990)2 + 0.25(800 − 990)2 + 0.4(1000 − 990)2 + 0.3(1200 − 990)2 = 29,900 mcf2
(g) E(T) = 100 × 395 + 12 × 990 = $51,380
The covariance between X and Y is σxσyρ = 7,474 × 29,900 × 0.4 ≈ 5,980.
Var(T) ≈ 100 × 100 × 7,475 + 12 × 12 × 29,900 + 2 × 100 × 12 × 5,980 = 93,407,600 $2. SD ≈ $9,665
(h) The mean E(T) would be the same, but the variance would be smaller by the term added by the covariance, or 2
× 100 × 12 × 5,980 = 14,352,000. That’s about 15% smaller.
(i) Energy operating costs are expected to be about $50,000 per store. The anticipated uncertainty indicates that costs
could be higher (or lower) by about $10,000 - $20,000, depending on weather and business activities.
(j) Key assumptions: The chances for the various levels of energy use, the level of dependence between the types of
use (correlation), and the costs of the energy (treated here as fixed, though certainly could change)

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Addison-Wesley.

Visit TestBankBell.com to get complete for all chapters