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. 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.
As calories increase, the carbohydrates also increase.
Calorie is the explanatory variable and carbs are the response variable.
Fitting a regression line will allow us to predict or estimate the number of carbohydrates in a certain menu item based on the number of calories.
The data probably meet the conditions of fitting to a least squares line, though it is not certain that it would be a good fit.
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.
y = β0 + β1 * x
β1 = Sy/Sx * R
Sy <- 9.41
Sx <- 10.37
R <- 0.67
x <- 107.20
y <- 171.14
B1 <- (Sy/Sx)*R
B1## [1] 0.6079749
B0 <- y - B1 * x
B0## [1] 105.9651
The equation of the regression line is:
y = 105.97 + 0.6079 * x
The slope is the change in shoulder girth per change in height or for every 1 cm in shoulder girth there is 0.6079cm in height.
The intercept is the height in cm when the girth is 0.
R2 <- R^2
R2## [1] 0.4489
R squared is 0.4489 so then 44.89% of the variation in height is explained by shoulder girth.
x <- 100
y <- 105.97 + 0.6079 * x
y## [1] 166.76
ei = yi − ŷ
yi <- 160
yhat <- 166.76
ei <- yi - yhat
ei## [1] -6.76
The residual is -6.76cm which means that the actual height is -6.76cm less than the predicted height.
The shoulder girth range in the data does not include 56cm so this would be outside of the predictions of the model.
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 coefficients are estimated using a dataset of 144 domestic cats.
β0 = −0.357 β1 = 4.034
Therefore y = −0.357 + 4.034⋅x where y is the heart weight and x is the body weight.
The intercept means that for a body weight of 0 kg, the average heart weight is -0.357 grams.
The slope shows that for a change of body weight in kilogram, the average heart weight of a cat increases by 4.034 grams.
R squared is 64.66% which means that the linear model describes 64.66% of the variation in the heart weight.
R <- 0.6466
R <- R^0.5
R## [1] 0.8041144
The correlation coefficient is 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 effectiveness 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 sample of 463 professors. The scatterplot below shows the relationship between these variables, and also provided is a regression output for predicting teaching evaluation score from beauty score.
B0 <- 4.010
x<- -0.0883
y<- 3.9983
B1 <- (y - B0)/x
B1## [1] 0.1325028
The slope is 0.1325028.
In order for the slope to be positive β1 needs to be > 0. Since β1=Sy/Sx*R and Sy>0 and Sx>0 the slope must be positive.
The conditions are likely met for linear regression.