BZAN 6310 - Solution to HW 2

1. Answers to these WL W problems are 5. This problem is similar to problem 4. Let x

provided in the text-related files that are
available online. Those solutions will not
follow the four steps I advised you to use in
the opening paragraph of this assignment,
however, so I may add to them at the end of
=number of birds hit. It seems reasonable
to model x as b(n = 20, p = 0.3)- check the
3 conditions - and we want P(x < 4), which
equals P(x s: 3). Again using Excel, the
desired probability is

~~ ~------------~0
this solution set.
;;
2. Let x denote the gain on one of these
policies. Then x = 36 ifthere is no fire and Excel: binom.dist(3,20,0.3,1) = 0.1071
x = 36- 15,000 = -14,964 ifthere is a fire.
Now write down the prob. dist'n. ofx: 6. If Larry is simply guessing the shape shown
on each card drawn, we basically have the
X P(x) "guessing on a multiple-choice exam"
-14,964 0.002 (2 fires per 1000) problem, in this case with 16 trials
36 0.998 (1 - .002) (questions) and P(success) = 0.20 on each
trial. The conditions for modeling x =
E[x] = 2: xP(x) = (-14964)(.002) + 36(0.998) number of correct answers as a binomial
= $6.00 random variable appear to be well-satisfied,
No, on this policy the company will earn $36 so we assume x- b(n = 16, p = 0.20), and
or lose $14,964. we wish to fmd P(at most 3 correct)= P(x s:
3) and P(at least 10 wrong)= P(at most 6
3. Let a success be a number greater than 2. correct)= P(x ,; 6):
Then P(success) = 4/6 = 2/3. Let x be the
--~i- --------··--- ·-· -----·--l
number of successes in 10 rolls of the die, 0 q >~ 7 :z_o
and this sounds like (and is) a binomial .....
problem where x- b(n = 10, p = 2/3), and Excel: binom.dist(3, 16,0.2, 1) = 0.5981
we want to fmd P(x z 8) = 1 - P(x s: 7); binom.dist(6,16,0.2,1) = 0.9733
remember: draw a picture. Since 0.67 (2/3
rounded) is not tabled, we would have to 7. It is probably reasonable to assume that such
either compute the needed probability injuries occur randomly over time, and we'll
manually (not the sort of messy calculation assume that in this plant individual injuries
one would want to deal with) or get Excel to are the rule and simultaneous injuries to
do it for us. Excel is the clear choice, and multiple individuals are very rare (although
the formula would be clearly the plants in some industries would
_JJ__.. not satisfy this description), which should
---z 111~ make the Poisson distribution a suitable
..,._! ' - probability model for the number of work-
Excel: 1- binom.dist(7,10,2/3,1) = 0.2991 related injuries within an interval of time. In
this case the concern is with a one-year time
4. Let a success be the event that a person takes period, and the expected annual frequency is
a room. We're given that P(success) = 0.1. 12 x 0.75 = 9 =A. Thus, we assume that x =
P(motel still will not be full) = P(fewer than number of work-related injuries in the one-
2 successes). If we let x =number of year period is distributed P(A = 9) assuming
successes out of 20 trials, it seems clear that the new safety procedures have no impact on
x is a binomial random variable (check the injury frequency. The question of interest
three conditions that must be satisfied). becomes "How unlikely was it to see only 7
Thus, x - b(n = 20, p = 0.1 ), and we want to injuries if the expected number was 9?" and
fmd P(x < 2) = P(x s: 1), which, is this is then commonly rephrased as "What's
I 'I'
"'l
I
(' I ,'1.- ~
· - - - - - ·.. ··--··------!
2. \)
the chance the plant would have seen 7 or
+' even fewer injuries in the year following
Excel: binom.dist(l,20,0.1,1) = 0.3917 adoption of the new safety procedures if the
 HW 2 Solution - page 2

in fact had no effect on the expected number a.

of injuries?" Thus, we look for P(x :s; 7):

1--;-:-:-:-; ~lr-
~
----
Excel: poisson.dist(7,9,1) = 0.3239
The area between 70 and x 0 is O.:W, which
A chance of roughly 1/3 says that a count of means that x 0 is about 1.28cr above 70, so Xa
7 or fewer would not be that surprising if the = 70 + 1.28(12) = 85.36 ==> $85,360.
expected count were equal to 9, so the Excel: norm.inv(0.90,70,12) = $85,379
results are not very convincing that the new
safety rules have been effective.
b.
8. A batch of 60 cookies will contain 450
chocolate chips, which means an average of
450 I 60 = 7.5 chocolate chips per cookie. 7o X
0
Some will have more and some will have
less (and in fact none will have exactly 7.5
chips assuming individual chips remain The area between 70 and x0 is 0.25, which
intact during the making of the cookies). means that x 0 is 0.675cr above J-1, so Xo = 70
We're told that a Poisson probability model + 0.675(12) = 78.1 ==> $78,100
is reasonable for the number of chips (x) in a Excel: norm.inv(0.75,70,12) = $78,094
cookie, so we assume x- P(A. = 7.5), and we
want to fmd P(x < 5) = P(x :s; 4):

~---;--;-]-~--t- ---~
Excel: poisson.dist(4,7.5,1) = 0.1321

We would then "expect" 0.1321 x 60 = 7.93,

or roughly 8, upsetting cookies in a batch of
60. (Note that you could now use a binomial
model to find the probability of, say, more
than a dozen upsetting cookies in a batch.)

9. Let x be the megawatt demand at the Amgar

Power Plant. We're told x- N(J-1 = 120, cr = (Continue to page 3)
10), and we wish to fmd the probability of
an overload = P(x > 150).

_11\: I 2.0 l.f"o

L___ _j
3<T
P(x > 150) = 0.5- 0.4987 = 0.0013.
Excel: I- norm.dist(150,120,10,1) = 0.00135

10. Let x denote the income (in $000s) of a

randomly selected member of the
community. We're given that x- N(J-1 = 70,
cr = 12).
 \
HW 2 Solution - page 3

4.1. Continuous: b,c Discrete: a,d,e b.

4.12.e. 0.7
f. 0.9
g. E[x] = 1(0.1) + 3(0.2) + ... + 9(0.1) = 5.0

4.53.a. Assuming the identification trials are

independent, which seems reasonable, the The area beyond x0 is 0.025, so the area
probability of the expert getting all five trials between 50 and x0 must be 0.50 - 0.025,or
correct is (.92)(.92)(.92)(.92)(.92) = 0.6591. 0.475. This means that x0 must be 1.96cr
Also, since the number of correct matches in above the meari of 50. Thus, x0 =50+
5 independent trials is a binomial random 1.96 (3) = 55.88.
variable (call it x), we want P(x = 5) where x Excel: norm.inv(0.975,50,3)
is distributed b(n = 5, p = 0.92), which can
be found using Excel with e.
Excel: binom.dist(5,5,0.92,0)
b. Similar to part a, in this case obtaining the
answer with either (0.75) 5 = 0.2373 or
Excel: binom.dist(5,5,0.75,0).

4.93.a. P(IO :> x :> 12) = 0.1915 + 0.1915 = 0.3830

The area between x0 and 50 is 0.40, so x0
must be roughly 1.28cr below 50, or x0 =
50- 1.28 (3) = 46.16.
Excel: norm.inv(0.1 0,50,3)
!0 !il'r
1 d I
o, r-;. Lis o- f.
Excel: norm.dist(l2, 11 ,2, 1) -
norm.dist(10,11,2,1)

e. P(x>13.24)=0.5-0.3686=0.1314

The area between 50 and x0 must be 0.49, so

x0 must be roughly 2.33cr above 50, or x0 =
50+ 2.33 (3) = 56.99.
Excel: norm.inv(0.99,50,3)
1/ /3. w
L.J
/. ll- <r 4.114. Let x be the quantity injected and assume
Excel: 1- norm.dist(13.24,11,2,1) that x- N(!-! = 10, a= 0.02). [I've assumed
a= 0.02, not 0.2, due to wording of part c.]
4.94.a.
a.

/0

Since half (0.50) the distribution lies below Clearly, P( container is underfilled) =
the mean, it follows that the area between 50 P(x < l 0) = 0.5 and P( overfilled)=
and X0 must be 0.3413, so Xo must be l.Ocr P(x > 10) = 0.5.
above the mean. Thus, x0 =50+ 1.0 (3) =
53.0.
Excel: norm.inv(0.8413,50,3)
 HW 2 Solution - page 4

b. I assume that if a container must be

reprocessed, the procedure is to add more
liquid to what is already in the container. In
that case, the amount of underfilling is not
important- ultimately, for this container, the
11 :2-r 3o
total amount of liquid injected is 10.60 units
t l. 0 "] LbfLJ
at a cost of 10.60 x $20, or $212, plus $10
for reprocessing, or $222, leaving a profit of P(s < 21) = 0.5- 0.4772 = 0.0228
$8 for this container (assuming there is not a P(s > 30) = 0.5 - 0.4938 = 0.0062
similar $10 cost associated with the initial P(21 < s < 30) = 0.4772 + 0.4938 = 0.9710
filling).
Excel: norm.dist(21,25,2,1) (=a)
c. In this case, where P(underfilling) is approx. 1- norm.dist(30,25,2,1) (=b)
zero (note that 10 is 5cr below the new mean 1 -a- b
of 10.10 units),
Profit P(Profit)
E[Profit] = E[230- 20x] = 230- 20E[x] -2 0.0228
= 230- 20(10.10) = $28 -1 0.0062
10 0.9710
4.180. Let x =number ofloaves demanded; we are
given that x - N(Jl = 7200, cr = 300). E[Profit] = (-2)(.0228) + (-1)(.0062)
+ (10)(.9710)
a. We want to produce x0 loaves of bread, = $9.6582 per part
where P(x < x0) = 0.94.

The area between 7200 and x0 is 0.44, which

means that x0 must be 1.55 to 1.56 -call it Results using Excel:
1.555 - standard deviations above 7200, so
that x0 = 7200 + 1.555(300) = 7200 + 466.5 4.53. a. 0.6591 b. 0.2373
= 7,667 loaves. 4.93. a. 0.3829 e. 0.1314
Excel: norm.inv(0.94,7200,300) 4.94. a. 52.999 b. 55.880 e. 46.155
f. 56.979
b. If the company produces 7,667 loaves, it 4.180. a. 7,666 b. 0.4562
will have more than 500 loaves left over if
demand falls below 7,167. So, must fmd
P(x < 7167). ,-O.fiiT
~

~'
;::.. .

P(x < 7167) = 0.5- 0.0438 = 0.4562.

Excel: norm.dist(7167, 7200,300, I)

4.202. Let s denote the tensile strength of one of

these metal parts; we are given that
s - N(Jl = 25, cr = 2).
 BZAN 6310- Solution to HW 6

3.39. Let A= Active, B =Inactive, C= Caisson, 3.12l.a. P(A operates properly)

W =Well protector, F =Fixed platform = P(all 3 components operate properly)
a. S = {AC, A W, AF, IC, IW, IF} =(1-0.12)(1-0.09)(1-0.11)=0.7127
b. 503/3400, 225/3400, 1447/3400, Note that this product is possible due to the
508/3400, 177/3400, 450/3400, independence of the components.
where 3400 = 217 5+ 1225 b. P(A fails)= 1 - 0.7127 = 0.2873
c. P(A) = 2175/3400 = 0.640
d. P(W) = 225/3400 + 177/3400 For the remaining parts,
= 402/3400 = 0.118 let C denote Subsystem C works properly,
e. P(JC) = 598/3400 = 0.176 let D denote Subsystem D works properly.
f. P(I or F) = P(J) + P(F) - P(I and F)
= 122513400 + (1447 + 450)13400 P(C) = P(components 1 and 2 both work
- 45013400 = 267213400 = 0.786 properly)
g. P(Cc) = 1 - P(C) = 1 - (503 + 598)13400 = P(C 1and C2) = (0.9)(0.9) = 0.81
= 0.676 due to indep. of components
P(D) = P(C 3 and C4 ) = 0.81 by the same
3.41. Suggestion: First construct a two-way table argument as for P(C).
with Compensation across the top (Full, Also, events C and D are independent due to
Partial, and Volunteer) and Retired along the independence of the components.
side (Yes and No), then fill in the cells and
a. 127 I 244 margins. c. P(C or D) = P(C) + P(D) - P(C and D)
b. 7 I 244 = 0.81 + 0.81 - (0.81 )(0.81) = 0.9639
c. (45+72)/244=1171244 [(0.81 )(0.81) from indep. of C, D]
d. 127 I 244 + 28 I 244- 7 I 244 = 148 I 244 d. P( exactly one fails)
= P[(C and De) or (CC and D)]
3.76.a. (a+ d) I (a+ b + c +d) = P(C and De)+ P(Cc and D)- 0
b. d I (b +d) = P(C)P(Dc) + P(Cc)P(D) by indep. of C, D
c. cl(a+c) = (0.81)(0.19) +(0.19)(0.81)
d. d I (c +d) = 0.3078
e. 420 I 498 = 0.843 e. P(system fails)= P(CC and De)
20 I 49 = 0.408 = (1- 0.81)(1- 0.81) = 0.0361
49 I 449 = 0.109 product is due to indep. of events
20 I 69 = 0.290 or = 1- 0.9639 (complement of part a)
f. We want P(system operates properly) to be
3.117. Let S 1 denote sale on the first visit and S2 > 0.99, which is the same as P(fail) < 0.01.
denote sale on the second. We're given that P(fail) = P(all subsystems fail)= (I - 0.81 )\
P(S 1) = 0.40, P(S 2 S 1c) = 0.65, and
1 where k = number of subsystems.
implicitly that P(S 1 and S2) = 0, so it follows Thus find k such that (I - 0.81 )k < 0.0 I.
that Through trial and error (try k = I, then k = 2,
P(S 2) = P(S 1 and S2) + P(S 1c and S2) etc.), k > 2, so we would need 3 subsystems
= 0 + P(Sic)P(S2IS!c) to get P(system operates properly)> 0.99.
=(I - 0.40)(0.65) = 0.39.
Thus, P(Sale) = P(S 1 or S2)
= P(S 1) + P(S 2)- P(S 1 and S2 )
= 0.40 + 0.39- 0 = 0.79
(Also seep. 2 for a two-way table solution.)
 HW 6 Solution - Page 2

independence means is to look at the

conditional distribution of marital status
(MS) given gender:
. 7or
MS P(MS I M) MS P(MS I F)
. 015
7183 = 0.084 10117 = 0.588
2 72/83 = 0.867 2 2/17=0.118
3 4183 = 0.048 3 5117 = 0.294

Clearly the conditional distribution of MS is

P(Incorrect Adj I Defective)= 0.05 I 0.095 affected by whether we condition on gender
= 0.526 equal to M or gender equal to F, so gender
and marital status are dependent, not
Non-text problems independent, variables in this population.

2.a. P(N) must equal! - P(A) by defmition. 5.a. 2 I 100

b. Probabilities cannot exceed 1. b. (8 + 43 + 28 + 3) I 100 = 82 I 100
c. Probabilities cannot be negative. c. 25 I 26
d. How can the intersection d. 12 I 14
of A and B (shaded) be
larger than A (or than B)?
(It can't be.) 6.a. 6
Also note that b. 44.90 years
P(B I A) = P(A and B) I P(A), which will c. $27,710; $44,000
be> 1 ifP(A and B)> P(A), but d. 2,200 sq. ft.
probabilities cannot exceed 1.
e.
P(A or B) is shaded. How Alternative (better) solution for problem 3.117
could this area be < P(A)?
(It can't be.) The two-way table below permits a more intuitive
Also note that solution to this problem. Note that it is assumed that
P(A or B) = P(A) + P(B) - P(A and B). there is no second visit if the first visit produces·a.
Since P(B) ~ P(A and B) by part d, it sale, so the probability is 0 for the cell corresponding
follows that the last two terms in the above to a sale on both visits. The problem statement also
expression for P(A or B) cannot produce a gives the marginal probability for a sale on the first
negative result, so that P(A or B) ~ P(A). visit (0.40) and sufficient information to compute the
probability that goes in the cell for No sale on the
3. The two-way table below summarizes the first visit and Sale on the second visit (0.60 x 0.65 =
information given in the problem statement. 0.39). With those three cells filled in, the remaining
Complete the table (start with the margins), cells can be determined. From the completed table, it
then answer the quest!ons. ? follows that
t3rokt /Oo, P(Sale) = P(S 1 or S2)
= P(S 1) + P(S 2) - P(S 1 and S2)

--==- -=;-j
= 0.40 + 0.39- 0 = 0.79
Jc./..;..17Y\ 2 1"(Vir/f!
Sf""j? : l
If N
3 '-/
Answers: a. 114 b. Yz, Yz c. 1/3 0 o.tf o 0. tfo

4.a. 831100, 17 I !00

0.17 fY,J-.J o. to
b. 74 I !00 0, tI
c. 5117
d. No. This answer can be supported in several
ways, but the way that best reinforces what
 BZAN 6310 - Solution to HW 7a
_ _
6.27. x = 30/6 = 5; s2 = [(4-5)2 + ... + (3-5)2]/(6-1)
= 26 / 5 = 5.2 ==> s = %5&.& 2 = 2.28
a. 90%: 5 ± 2.015 (2.28 / %6& ) = 5 ± 1.876
b. 95%: 5 ± 2.571 (2.28 / %6& ) = 5 ± 2.393
c. 99%: 5 ± 4.032 (2.28 / %6& ) = 5 ± 3.753
_ (0.44, 1.82).
Now assume same x and s, but let n = 25.
a. 90%: 5 ± 1.711 (2.28 / %2&5 ) = 5 ± 0.780
b. 95%: 5 ± 2.064 (2.28 / %2&5 ) = 5 ± 0.941
c. 99%: 5 ± 2.797 (2.28 / %2&5 ) = 5 ± 1.275
_ the table. In that older version of the table,
6.32.a. x = 3.8, s = 1.2, n = 20
90% C.I. est. for ì:
3.8 ± 1.729 (1.2 / %2&0 ) = 3.8 ± 0.464
b. We can be 90% confident that the interval
(3.336, 4.264) contains the true mean LOS
for women in this state’s hospitals in 2008.
c. It’s an interval constructed in such a way
that 90% of such intervals will contain the
population measure being estimated.
6.43.a. Your text uses the rule that n is large enough
^ and (1 - np^ ) are both $ 15. These
if np
conditions are satisfied here, so n is large
enough.
b. ^p ± 1.96óp^ = 0.46 ± 1.96(0.033)
= 0.46 ± 0.0647
c. 95% confident that this interval contains the
true population proportion (in the sense that
95% of the intervals constructed this way
would do so).
6.45.a. ^p = 818 / 2045 = 0.40
b. p^ is distributed approximately normal with
mean = p and std. error = %& 1-&p&
p(& )/&
n . To
build a CI, must estimate p in the standard
error with p^.
c. 95% CI: p^ ± mult %[ p^ (1 - p^)]] =
0.40 ± 1.96 %& 40&x&0&.&
0.& 60&/&2&0&
45&
= 0.40 ± 0.021 . (0.379, 0.421)
d. 95% confident that this interval contains the
true population proportion (in the sense that
95% of the intervals constructed this way
would do so).
_
6.122.a. 99% CI: x ± mult ó_x = x ± mult ó/%n&.
_Estimate ó with s, multiple becomes tn-1, or
x ± tn-1 (s/%n& ) = 1.13 ± 2.648 (2.21/%7&2 ) =
1.13 ± 0.690.
We are 95% confident that the true mean
number of pecks is contained in the interval
Note: The t-multiple of 2.648 is for d.f.=70,
which is the closest value to 71 that is higher
up in the t table in the 12th edition of MBS.
In earlier editions, the t table jumped from
30 to 40 to 60 to 120, so d.f.=70 was not in
the closest value to 71 that is higher up in
the table is 2.660, which corresponds to
d.f.=60; using 2.660 would produce a
slightly wider CI.
b. The result in part a indicates that it is very
likely that the mean for blue string is less
than 2 pecks, which provides very convinc-
ing evidence that chickens are more likely to
peck at white string (in light of previous
research supporting a ì of 7.5 for white
string).
_ _
6.123.a. 99% CI: x ± mult ó_x = x ± mult ó/%n&.
_Estimate ó with s, multiple becomes tn-1, or
x ± tn-1 (s/%n& ) = 49.3 ± 9.925 (1.5/%3& ) =
49.3 ± 8.60.
b. We are 99% confident that the true mean
percentage of B(a)p removed by the toxin is
contained in the interval (40.7%, 57.9%).
c. The probability distribution of x - the pct. of
B(a)p removed from a soil specimen by the
toxin - is roughly mound-shaped and
symmetric.
d. Based on the confidence interval in part a,
50% is certainly a plausible value for the
true mean percent removed.
e. Omit this part.
 BZAN 6310 - Solution to HW 7b
7.11. H0 : p = 0.07 vs. H.: p < 0.07
7.13 H0 : !.! = 863 vs. H.: !.! < 863
7.53. H0 : !.! = 6000 vs. H.: !.! < 6000
Test Stat: (pt. est.- hyp. value)= ~ Test Stat: (pt. est.- hyp. value)= ~
std. error of pt. est. a,
s~
!Ill - tn_ 1 (estimate a with s)
D.R.- Reject H 0 iftcalc < -1.363, o/w don't
reject
tcalc = (3642.5 - 6000) / (4486.929 /lf2) =
-1.82
Since -182 < -1.363, reject H 0 , conclude the
true mean radon level in the tombs is less
than 6,000 Bq/m3
The p value in this case is the tail area below
-1,82 on at distribution with 11 d.f. Using
Excel- T.DIST(-1.82,11,1)- this area is
0.048, which is less than a= 0.10, and that
confmns that the null hypothesis should be
rejected at the 10% significance level.
7.54.a. H0 : !l = 5.70 vs. H.: !l < 5.70
b. Test Stat: (p~ est.- hyp. value)=
st . error of pt. est.
~
a,
~
s !Ill - tn_ 1 (estimate a with s)
D.R.- Reject H 0 iftcalc < -2.821, o/w don't
reject
C. tcalc = (5.07- 5.70) / (0.46 /lfO) = -4.33
d. Since -4.33 < -2.821, reject H 0, conclude the
new bonding adhesive is not as strong as the
current standard.
e. The probability distribution of breaking
strength of the new bonding adhesive is
roughly mound-shaped and symmetric.
7.78. H 0 : p = 0.70 vs. H.: p f 0.70
std. error of pt. est. a!>
1\
/poCl~:o)ln - appx N(O,l)
~s / [ \ 1
·~.us
-!.l.'lt 0 l,t,'/t
D.R. - Reject H 0 if zcalc < -1.645 or> I .645,
o/w don't reject.
p= 1554 I 2376 "' 0.654
zcaJc = (.654- .70) I /(,......7=0)'""'(.=30""')/""'23=7,.,...6
=- 4.893
-4.893 is much less than -1.645, so we can
easily reject H 0 at a= 0.10.
7.128. H 0 : !.! = 1220 vs. H.: !.! < 1220
Test Stat: (pt. est.- hyp. value)= x- Jlo
std. error of pt. est. a,
s~
!Ill - tn_ 1 (estimate a with s)
·~
-1.1'13 0
By default, use 0.05 significance level, so
reject H 0 iftcalc < -1.833, o/w don't reject.
I used Excel to get the needed descriptive
statistics ofx = 989.8 and s = 160.6755
tca1c = (989.8- 1220) I (160.6755 lifO)=
-4.53. Since -4.53 < -1.833, reject Ho, .
conclude very strongly that the new pricing
reduced the average number of vehicles
trying to use the tunnel at peak rush hour.
Using T.DIST, the p-value is 0.000713,
meaning the observed sample mean would
have been extremely unlikely if new pricing
had no effect on demand for the tunnel.
 HW 7b Solution- page 2

7.132.a. H 0: p = 0.50 vs. H.: p f. 0.50

1\
Test Stat: (pt. est.- hyp. value)= ~
std. error of pt. est. crP
1\
P- Po
VPoO-Po)/n - appx N (0 ' 1)

D.R. -Reject H 0 if Zcalc < -1.96 or> 1.96,

olw don't reject.
77
Zcalc = (.60- .50) I viT(."'50")(".5;;;0"')/4 0 = 1.265

1.265 is not< -1.96 or> 1.96, so we

cannot reject H0 at a= 0.05.
b. np 0 = ( 40)(0.50) = 20 > 15, and similarly for
n( 1 - p0), so yes, n is large enough.
c.

~·''''
o /, ?../,r

Area in right tail= 0.5 - 0.3962 = 0.1 038; p-

value = 0.1038 times 2, or 0.2076, because
this is a 2-tailed test.
d. a> 0.2076
 BZAN 6310 - Solution to HW 8
11.23.a. y= 1.150 + 0.078767x, where
y= revenue in $millions
and x = avg. number of tweets per hour
one week before movie's release
b. Test H 0 : ~~ = 0 against H.: ~~ fO
(\
Test Stat: = @1 - (~ 1 ) 0 - tn.z
SA
~I
tcalc = (.078767- 0)/ .007938 = 9.92 > 2.080
==> Reject H0, conclude average tweet rate
one week before movie's release is a useful
predictor of opening weekend box office
revenue.
c. Estimate of a iss= 13.3165. Note that sis
an estimate of the standard deviation of y for
a given value ofx. In this problem, for a
given average hourly tweet rate one week
before opening, there is a high probability
( "95%) that a movie's actual opening
weekend box office revenue will fall within
$27M ("2 times s) ofthe estimated expected
revenue.
d. ~ = 82.4% ==> 82.4% of the variation in
opening weekend box office revenue across
the movies in this sample can be explained
by variation in the average hourly one-week-
,;thead tweet rate across those movies.
e. ~~ = 0.078767, which says that on the
average, opening weekend box office
revenue increases by $0.078767M, or
$78,767 for each additional tweet in the
average hourly one-week-ahead tweet rate.
Equivalently, it sayS' that on the average,
opening weekend box office revenue
increases by roughly $7.88M for each
additional I 00 tweets in the average hourly
one-week-ahead tweet rate.
f. See page 3. (Note in this scatter plot that the
data suggest a violation in one of the
underlying population assumptions: the
variability in y appears to increase as x
increases; that is, it appears that Var(y) is
not a constant cr 2 for all values ofx.)
11.24.a. y= 187.013- 0.27081x, where
y=an elementary school's average
3'd-grader score on the FCAT
and x = percent of students below the
poverty level
b. Test H0 : ~ 1 = 0 against H.: ~ 1 fO
(\
Test Stat: = ~~ - (@ 1) 0
SA
~I
tcalc = (-0.27081 - 0)/ .03036 = -8.92 < -2.086
==>Reject H0 , conclude percentage of
students below the poverty level is a useful
predictor of a school's average 3'd-grade
score on the FCA T reading exam.
c. Estimate ofcr iss= 3.42319. In this
problem, for a given percentage of students
below the poverty level, there is a high
probability ("95%) that a school's actual
average 3'ct-grade score on the FCAT
reading exam will fall within 6.85 points ( "2
times s) of the estimated average.
d.~= 79.9% ==> 79.9% ofthe variation in
average 3'ct-grade score on the FCAT
reading exam across the schools in this
sample can be explained by variation in the
percentage of students below the poverty
Aevel across those schools.
e. ~~ = -0.27081, which says that on the
average, the average 3'd-grade score on the
FCAT reading exam drops by 0.27081
points (? - units aren't provided) for each
one percentage point increase in the
percentage of students below the poverty
level
f. See page 3.
11.103.
a. y= 44.130 + 0.2366x, where
y= manager success index
and x = no. of interactions w/ outsiders
b. Test H 0 : ~~ = 0 against H.: ~~ fO
(\
Test Stat: = P 1 - %)o -
tn·2
 HW 8 Solution - page 2

-2.//C 0 1.110

tcalc = (0.2366- 0)/ 0.1865 = 1.27 j 2.110

==>Cannot reject H 0 at a= 0.05, conclude
the number of interactions with outsiders is
not a useful predictor of a manager's success
index.
c. Estimate of a iss= 19.4038. For a given
number of interactions, s is the estimate of
the standard deviation of the success index.
Thus, for a given number of interactions
with outsiders, there is a high probability
( "'95%) that a manager's actual success
index will be within± 2s, or 38.8 points of
the estimated expected value given by the
fitted regression model. Clearly there is
considerable variability in y for each value
ofx in this data (look at the scatter plot).
The index value itself likely is scaled to fall
between 0 and 100- no observations fall
outside those values- so± 38.8 points may
cover most of the possible values of the
index; in fact,± 38.8 gives a wider interval
(77.6 points) than the range ofthe sample
observations, which is 95 - 25 = 70. This is
consistent with the predictor providing
almost no explanatory power concerning the
response.
d. i = 8.6% ==> 8.6% of the variation in
manager success index across the managers
in this sample can be explained by variation
in the number of interactions with outsiders
across those managers.
e. No real reason to interpret this estimate
since it is not significantly different from 0.
f. Might as well plot ~e fitted line for practice;
see page 3.
 HW 8 Solution - Page 3

Scatterplot of Revenue vs Tweets

160

140 • jj ~ /, I f o f 0. 0 7! 7 t 7 X
./'
120

100 ~¥

·I
Q)
::l
=
Q)
::>
80
Q)
~ 60
(z.oo 1 !1..7o) (t'fO~ 1 1/j, 1/1. J X "
40 f
20
•
l-00 /,Jfo f o.rnf7?7 (1-uo)=- /!.. 9o
0
l'f oo
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Tweets

Scatterplot of READING vs POVERTY

~ (t.o,tfU.) • •
~ 170 • ~ • 0oo, /Pl. 9)

~
165 X y
160 lh, 013-0. J:?of 1 ()..o) = /!/,?
• v'
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
/r!O
POVERTY

Scatterplot of Success vs Interacts

100 " ;: t/L/,/50 1- 0,1-3U X
• ~ /'
:Y.'h'f\
90
t Ju<.,c...t5S frtfu..A.C :k d'vt.S
80
•• ( 1o,
••
70
"'
~ 60
(_ o, J./'-(. 11o)
"'" 50 { ._ . ---~
• •
X
A

d
40
• 0 1/ L/, /30 f 0.1-3 U (o) 11. J3o
30 • • .o0

• • I
20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
9o (fo) ~ iJ.'-Ilt/
80 90
Interacts
 BZAN 6310 - Solution to HW 9a
l.a. y=45.103192 + 8.952449x 1 + 1.212715x2 +
9.94556x 3, where
y =systolic blood pressure (mm of mercury)
x 1 = Quetelet index (metric version ofBMI)
x 2 = age in years
x 3 = smoking preference ( 1=yes, 2=no)
b. Test H 0 : P1 = 0 against H.: P1 1'0
1\
Test Stat: = @1 - %)o - tn-(k+I)
SA
~.
'\L1~,..
-1-.0<13' 0 (l,Oiif
(,716
tcalc = (8.592449- 0) I 4.498681 = 1.910,
which does not fall in either tail, so cannot
reject H0 at the 5% significance level. (Note
that the p-value for this test is 0.0664, and
the decision not to reject H 0 could also be
made by noting that 0.0664 > 0.05.)
Interpretation: QUET does not contribute
significantly to explaining the variation in
SBP after the effects of AGE and SMK have
been accounted for.
c. Ho: P1 = Pz = PJ = 0
H.: At least one slope 1'0
Test Stat: F = MSR I MSE - F 3,28 •
I don't have a handy picture to use, but the
F 3,28 sampling distribution (which is correct
if H 0 is actually true) is anchored at F=O and
skewed to the right. For a= 0.01, the
critical value (tail cut-off value) for the test
is 4.568 using =F.INV(0.99,3,28), so we
reject H0 ifF calc> 4.568.
Fcalc = 1629.942 I 54.862252 = 29.710 »
4.568, so reject H 0, conclude the regression
is significant (i.e., at,least one of the three
slopes is 1'0). Equivalently, SAS gives the
p-value as 0.0001 << 0.01 ->reject H 0 •
d. s = 7.406906 is the point estimate for a.
Interpretation: The estimated standard
deviation of SBP around its mean (i.e., the
population regression line) for any given set
of values for the predictors is 7.407. This
statistic s is therefore an estimate of a
measure of the variation in SBP in the
population. More precisely, for given values
ofQUET, AGE, and SMK, there is a sub-
population of people who have those given
values for those three predictors. SBP in
this sub-population is a random variable
whose mean, by our assumptions, is given by
Po+ P1QUET + P2AGE + P3 SMK. We
assume that SBP is normally dist'd in that
sub-population, and that it has a standard
deviation a. Our estimate of that standard
deviation in this case is 7.407, and this value
gives us an indication of how spread out the
systolic blood pressures are in this sub-popu-
lation. For example, we would expect
roughly 95% of those SBPs to fall within
about± 15 ("' 2 x 7 .407) mm of mercury of
the true mean SBP for that sub-population.
e. For specified values of relative size and
smoking preference (i.e., holding QUET and
SMK constant), SBP increases by 1.212715
mm of mercury, on average, for each
additional year in a person's age.
f. For specified values of QUET and AGE, the
average SBP of smokers is 9.945568 mm of
mercury more than the avg for non-smokers.
g. R 2 = 0.7609. Interpretation: Roughly 76%
of the variation in systolic blood pressure
across the 32 males in this sample is
explained by variation in the relative sizes
(measured by the Quetelet index), ages, and
smoking preferences of those males.
h. r
The highest would be obtained by using
AGE if we wanted a one-predictor model.
In that case, r 2 would be (0.7752? = 0.601.
The other questions can be answered by
using the fact that SST= 6425.969, so that
SSR in this single-variable model would be
(0.601) x (6425.969) = 3862. The corres-
ponding ANOVA table would then be
Source ss df MS
Regression 3862 1 3862
Error 2564 30 85.47
Total 6426 31
s = v'MSE = 185.47 = 9.245
Fcalc = MSR I MSE = 3862 I 85.47 = 45.2
(Note: The corresponding t-statistic for
testing H 0 : P1 = 0 can be found from tcalc =
v'Fcalc = v'/\45.2 = 6.72, and it would be +6.72
because P1 would be positive since the corre-
lation between SBP and AGE is positive.