Observations Flavor Packaging Light Organic Rank

1 Raspberry Homemade waffle No low fat Not organic 9

2 Chocolate Cone No low fat Organic 3
3 Raspberry Pint Low fat Organic 2
4 Strawberry Pint No low fat Organic 4
5 Strawberry Cone Low fat Not organic 6
6 Chocolate Homemade waffle No low fat Not organic 10
7 Vanilla Pint Low fat Not organic 7
8 Mango Homemade waffle Low fat Organic 1
9 Mango Pint No low fat Not organic 8
10 Vanilla Homemade waffle No low fat Organic 5

SUMMARY OUTPUT R Square: 99.5% of the

variation in ratings can be
Regression Statistics explained by the variation in
the independent variables.
Multiple R 0.997471550947442
R Square 0.994949494949495
Adjusted R Square 0.954545454545455
Standard Error 0.645497224367903
Observations 10 Significance F: Because the
significance F is greater tha
05, we do not continue with
ANOVA the regression.=F
df SS MS F
Regression 8 82.0833333 10.26041667 24.625
Residual 1 0.41666667 0.416666667
Total 9 82.5

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value

Intercept 1.66666666666667 0.62360956 2.672612419 0.227935
Raspberry 0.5 0.64549722 0.774596669 0.580431
Chocolate -0.083333333333333 0.81223286 -0.10259784 0.934912
mango 1.5 0.64549722 2.323790008 0.258708
strawberry 0.166666666666667 0.74535599 0.223606798 0.859951
homemade waffle -0.416666666666667 0.49300665 -0.84515425 0.5533
cone 1.25 0.72168784 1.732050808 0.333333
low fat 2.08333333333333 0.49300665 4.225771274 0.14793
organic 5 0.40824829 12.24744871 0.051865
Rating (1=worst) (DV) Raspberry Chocolate mango strawberryhomemade waffle cone low fat
2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
8 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
9 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
10 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Significance F: Because the

significance F is greater than .
05, we do not continue with
the regression.=F
Significance F
0.154676086308705

Lower 95% Upper 95%Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%
-6.25704413482835 9.590377 -6.257044 9.590377
-7.70181988945107 8.70182 -7.70182 8.70182
-10.403730372211 10.23706 -10.40373 10.23706
-6.70181988945107 9.70182 -6.70182 9.70182
-9.30397917537214 9.637313 -9.303979 9.637313
-6.68091007996731 5.847577 -6.68091 5.847577
-7.9199134060112 10.41991 -7.919913 10.41991
-4.18091007996731 8.347577 -4.18091 8.347577
-0.187286361827163 10.18729 -0.187286 10.18729
organic
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
Observations Brand MPG Power Price ($) Rank Rank (1=worst) (DV)
1 Ford 15 MPG 100 HP 18,000 4 6
2 Ford 20 MPG 150 HP 24,000 7 3
3 Ford 25 MPG 200 HP 21,000 3 7
4 Chrysler 15 MPG 150 HP 21,000 6 4
5 Chrysler 20 MPG 200 HP 18,000 2 8
6 Chrysler 25 MPG 100 HP 24,000 9 1
7 GM 15 MPG 200 HP 24,000 8 2
8 GM 20 MPG 100 HP 21,000 5 5
9 GM 25 MPG 150 HP 18,000 1 9

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 1
R Square 1
Adjusted R 65535
Standard Er 0
Observatio 9

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 8 60 7.5 #NUM! #NUM!
Residual 0 0 65535
Total 8 60

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%

Intercept 7 0 65535 #NUM! 7
Ford 0.00 0 65535 #NUM! 4.15476097517E-16
Chrysler -1 0 65535 #NUM! -1
15 MPG -1.6666666666667 0 65535 #NUM! -1.66666666666667
20 MPG -0.3333333333333 0 65535 #NUM! -0.33333333333333
100 HP -1.6666666666667 0 65535 #NUM! -1.66666666666667
150 HP -0.3333333333333 0 65535 #NUM! -0.33333333333333
18000 2.3333333333333 0 65535 #NUM! 2.33333333333333
24000 -3.3333333333333 0 65535 #NUM! -3.33333333333334

Coefficients:
Ford 0
Brand Chrysler -1 1 Rank 3
GM 0
15 MPG -1.67
MPG 20 MPG -0.33 1.67 Rank 2
MPG 1.67 Rank 2
25 MPG 0
100 HP -1.67
Power 150 HP -0.33 1.67 Rank 2
200 HP 0
18,000 2.33
Price 21,000 -3.33 5.66 Rank 1
24,000 0

New price = old price + 60

New price = 21,000 + 60

New price = $21,060

Ford Chrysler 15 MPG 20 MPG 100 HP 150 HP 18,000 24,000
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Upper 95%Lower 95.0%

Upper 95.0%
7 7 7
4.155E-16 4.155E-16 4.155E-16
-1 -1 -1
-1.666667 -1.666667 -1.666667
-0.333333 -0.333333 -0.333333
-1.666667 -1.666667 -1.666667
-0.333333 -0.333333 -0.333333
2.333333 2.333333 2.333333
-3.333333 -3.333333 -3.333333

New price calculations:

Price
18000 2.33
21000 -3.33
 24000 0

3,000 difference between 24,000 and 21,00 -3.33 points

1$ -0.0011 points

MPG
15 -1.67
20 -0.33
25 0

5 MPG diff -0.33 points

e = old price + 60
1 MPG -0.066 points
e = 21,000 + 60
1 -0.0011
e = $21,060
? -0.066
 Q3

1996 Baseball
Team Runs (DV) Singles Doubles Triples HR's BB's SB's Ln_Runs (new DV)
Cleveland 840 952 279 23 207 542 132 6.7334019
Chicago Sox 755 982 252 37 146 576 110 6.6267177
Boston 791 907 286 31 175 560 99 6.673298
Minnesota 703 974 270 34 120 471 105 6.5553569
California 801 927 252 25 186 564 58 6.6858609
Yankees 749 929 280 34 122 625 50 6.618739
Seattle 796 899 276 20 182 549 110 6.6795992
Milwaukee 740 910 249 42 128 502 105 6.6066502
Texas 691 895 247 24 138 526 90 6.5381398
Oakland 730 881 228 18 169 565 112 6.5930445
Baltimore 704 838 229 27 173 574 92 6.5567784
Kansas City 629 881 240 35 119 475 120 6.4441313
Toronto 642 867 275 27 140 492 75 6.4645883
Detroit 654 788 228 29 159 551 73 6.4831074
Colorado 785 904 259 43 200 484 125 6.6656837
Housston 747 1012 260 22 109 566 176 6.6160652
San Diego 668 978 231 20 116 447 124 6.5042882
Cincinnati 747 853 277 35 161 519 190 6.6160652
Mets 657 946 218 34 125 446 58 6.487684
Cubs 693 851 267 39 158 440 105 6.54103
LA 634 941 191 31 140 468 127 6.452049
Philadelphia 615 909 263 30 94 497 72 6.4216223
Florida 673 891 214 29 144 517 131 6.5117453
Pittsburgh 629 884 245 27 125 456 84 6.4441313
Montreal 621 861 265 24 118 400 120 6.4313311
San Francisco 652 842 229 33 152 472 138 6.4800446
Atlanta 645 797 210 27 168 520 73 6.4692503
St Louis 563 813 238 24 107 436 79 6.3332796

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
R Square: The dependent variables
Multiple R 0.9687972 explain 93.86% of the variance in
R Square 0.938568 runs.
Adjusted R Squa 0.921016
Standard Error 0.0276501
Observations 28

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F Significance F: Because sign
Regression 6 0.2452922 0.040882 53.4736 0.00 is 0, which is less than 0.05,
assume that at least one of
Residual 21 0.0160551 0.0007645 independent variables is sig
Total 27 0.2613473

Page 8
 Q3

Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%Lower 95.0%
Intercept 4.9737485 0.1044321 47.626614 6.981E-23 4.75657 5.190927 4.75657
Singles 0.0007421 0.000106 7.0038381 0.00 0.0005217 0.0009624 0.0005217
Doubles 0.0010521 0.000229 4.5936436 0.0001573 0.0005758 0.0015283 0.0005758
Triples 0.001367 0.0008222 1.6626604 0.1112354 -0.000343 0.0030767 -0.000343
HR's 0.0019653 0.0002112 9.306949 0.00 0.0015262 0.0024045 0.0015262
BB's 0.0005688 0.0001162 4.8962004 0.00 0.0003272 0.0008104 0.0003272
SB's 0.0002615 0.0001707 1.5319415 0.1404639 -9.349E-05 0.0006165 -9.349E-05

Interpretations:

If singles hit increase by 1, runs increase by .000742%.

If doubles hit increase by 1, runs increase by .00105%.

If HR's hit increase by 1, runs increase by .00197%.

If BB's hit increase by 1, runs increase by .000569%.

Page 9
 Q3

Ln_Runs (new DV)

gnificance F: Because significance f

0, which is less than 0.05, we can
ssume that at least one of the
dependent variables is significant.

Page 10
 Q3

Upper 95.0%
5.190927 ANOVA: Singles, doubles, HR's, and
0.0009624 BB's are all shown as significant
because the p-values are less than
0.0015283 0.05. Triples and SB's are
0.0030767 insignificant because the p-values
0.0024045 are above 0.05.
0.0008104
0.0006165

Page 11