Chapter 7C
Q.9
• A correlation between the number of bars and the number of school teachers
does not mean that teachers spend time in bars.
• Correlation ̸= causation.
• The relationship is explained by underlying factors such as:
– City population – larger cities naturally have more teachers (schools)
and more bars.
– Tourism – tourist cities support more bars and usually also have bigger
schools.
– Economic activity – prosperous cities create demand for both enter-
tainment and education.
– Urbanization – dense urban areas have more institutions and leisure
places.
• Hence, the correlation arises from these common causes, not from a direct
causal link.
Q.10
• A strong negative correlation between birth rate and life expectancy does
not mean lowering birth rate will directly raise life expectancy.
• Correlation ̸= causation.
• The relationship is explained by underlying factors such as:
– Level of development – developed countries have both lower birth
rates and higher life expectancy.
– Healthcare quality – poor healthcare leads to high infant/maternal
mortality and low life expectancy.
– Socioeconomic conditions – poverty, malnutrition, lack of sanitation
and education increase birth rate and reduce life span.
1
• Hence, the observed correlation arises from these common causes, not
from a direct causal link.
Q.11
(a) Explanatory and response variables
• Explanatory variable (EV): Hours (time spent gambling).
• Response variable (RV): Amount ($) spent gambling.
(b) Scatterplot / points to plot
• Points: (10,500), (11,530), (12,300), (15,750), (20,1000), (21,1200), (25,2000),
(35,2300), (40,5000).
• Scatterplot shows a positive linear trend with one extreme point (40,5000).
Figure 1: Scatterplot of Gambling Hours vs Amount Spent.
(c) Correlation coefficient r
• Mean of hours = 21.0, mean of amount = 1508.9.
• (x − x̄)2 = 912.
P
2
• (y − ȳ)2 = 17, 422, 688.9.
P
•
P
(x − x̄)(y − ȳ) = 116200.
116200
• r=√ ≈ 0.922.
912 × 17, 422, 688.9
• Result: Strong positive correlation.
(d) Association description
• Direction: Positive.
• Strength: Strong (r ≈ 0.922).
• Form: Roughly linear with one influential extreme point.
• Context: More hours gambling → much more money spent, but one ex-
treme value strongly affects correlation.
3
Q.13 (20 employees: Salary vs Years)
Data
Secondary:
(2,52), (3,64), (2,56), (4,63), (7,65), (6,64), (7,52), (10,65), (5,59), (5,62).
Tertiary:
(2,62), (3,69), (4,75), (5,76), (4,72), (4,68), (1,63), (8,85), (3,67), (6,77).
(a) All employees
X X X X X
n = 20, x = 91, y = 1316, x2 = 513, y 2 = 87906, xy = 6095
x̄ = 4.55, ȳ = 65.8
Sxx = 98.95,Syy = 1313.20, Sxy = 107.20
107.20
r=√ ≈ 0.297
98.95 × 1313.20
Result: r = 0.297 (weak positive).
Figure 2: All employees: Salary vs Years, r = 0.297.
4
(b) Secondary education
n = 10, x̄ = 5.10, ȳ = 60.2
Sxx = 56.9, Syy = 239.6, Sxy = 47.8
47.8
r=√ ≈ 0.409
56.9 × 239.6
Result: r = 0.409 (moderate positive).
Figure 3: Secondary employees: Salary vs Years, r = 0.409.
(c) Tertiary education
n = 10, x̄ = 4.0, ȳ = 71.4
Sxx = 36.0, Syy = 446.4, Sxy = 121.0
121.0
r=√ ≈ 0.954
36.0 × 446.4
Result: r = 0.954 (very strong positive).
5
Figure 4: Tertiary employees: Salary vs Years, r = 0.954.
(d) Conclusion
• All employees: r = 0.297 (weak positive correlation).
• Secondary: r = 0.409 (moderate positive correlation).
• Tertiary: r = 0.954 (very strong positive correlation).
Final interpretation: Salary rises with years of service across the company,
but the increase is much stronger and more consistent for Tertiary-educated
employees. Combining both groups lowers the overall correlation.
