{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

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

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

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.

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

View Full Document
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
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 ]}