{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

lab8 - this case probably because it eliminated some of the...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Alexandra Linder Th 1:25 Lab 8 2. The association is linear, relatively strong and positive. world wars 1 and 2, one much higher b/c mexico 3.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I eliminated the points with the largest residuals in the original regression to make the correlation stronger. I think the model I created works well because there is a higher value of R-squared. The equation of the line of best fit is: dist=.0574732(year)+ 285.158. The slope means that the long jump distance increased by .057 inches each year. The value of R-squared means that the variability in long jump distance is 93.3% due to the relation between these variables. In 2000: dist=.0574732(100)+ 285.158=290.90532. This model underestimates the actual value in
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: this case, probably because it eliminated some of the upper values that occurred around that year. In 2004: dist=.0574732(104)+ 285.158=291.1352128 The increase from 2000 is close to the actual increase, but the value is still too low. The y-intercept should have been higher. Prediction for 2012: dist=.0574732(112)+ 285.158=291.5949984 This is the appropriate amount of increase, but the actual value will probably be about 47 inches higher. Prediction for 2100: dist=.0574732(200)+ 285.158=296.65264 The actual value will probably be around 343 in. Though humans may have reached they're natural limit for long jumping by then....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}