Graded: 7.24, 7.26, 7.30, 7.40
7.24 Nutrition at Starbucks, Part I. The scatterplot below shows the relationship between the number of calories and amount of carbohydrates (in grams) Starbucks food menu items contain.21 Since Starbucks only lists the number of calories on the display items, we are interested in predicting the amount of carbs a menu item has based on its calorie content.
Ans: A positive linear relationship.
Ans: Calories is explanatory, and Carb is response variables.
Ans: We want to know how much carb. may produce calories.
Ans: No, since the residual plot actually shows a nonline relationship. There is not a contradiction: residual plots can show divergences from linearity that can be difficult to see in a scatterplot.
7.26 Body measurements, Part III. Exercise 7.15 introduces data on shoulder girth and height of a group of individuals. The mean shoulder girth is 107.20 cm with a standard deviation of 10.37 cm. The mean height is 171.14 cm with a standard deviation of 9.41 cm. The correlation between height and shoulder girth is 0.67.
Ans: b1=0.67 x 10.37/9.41 = 0.738 , y=b0+0.738x –> b0= 92.29 y=92.29 + 0.738x
Ans: Slope:For each additonal shouder girth, the model predicts an additional 0.738 cm in height. Intercept: When shoulder girth is 0, the height is expected to be 92.29 cm.
Ans: sqrt(R) = sqrt(0.67) = 0.4489
Ans: 92.29 + 0.738 x 100 = 166.09cm
Ans: ???6.09cm(= 160 ??? 166.09 ) means the model may overestimate the height.
Ans: 92.29 + 0.738 ??? 56 = 133.62cm
7.30 Cats, Part I. The following regression output is for predicting the heart weight (in g) of cats from their body weight (in kg). The coecients are estimated using a dataset of 144 domestic cats.
Ans: heartWeight = ???0.357 + 4.034 ??? bodyWeight
Ans: Expected heart weight of cat with no body weight is -0.357 g.
Ans: For every additional kg in body weight, there is 4.034 g additional to heart weight.
Ans: Body weight level expalined 64.66% of heart weight.
Ans: sqrt(0.6466) = 0.8041144
7.40 Rate my professor. Many college courses conclude by giving students the opportunity to evaluate the course and the instructor anonymously. However, the use of these student evaluations as an indicator of course quality and teaching e???ectiveness is often criticized because these measures may reflect the influence of non-teaching related characteristics, such as the physical appearance of the instructor. Researchers at University of Texas, Austin collected data on teaching evaluation score (higher score means better) and standardized beauty score (a score of 0 means average, negative score means below average, and a positive score means above average) for a 370 CHAPTER 7. INTRODUCTION TO LINEAR REGRESSION sample of 463 professors.24 The scatterplot below shows the relationship between these variables, and also provided is a regression output for predicting teaching evaluation score from beauty score.
Ans: 3.9983 = 4.01 + b1 x (???0.0883) => b1 = 0.1325
Ans: No. Teh scatterplot shows nonlinear relation.
Ans: The following four condiions required for linear regression: linear, nearly normal residuas, Constant variability and independent observation.