snehalsingh_bbe2115_secpractical (1)
snehalsingh_bbe2115_secpractical (1)
snehalsingh_bbe2115_secpractical (1)
Ans 2:
Mean Value of monthly pocket money received (in rupees) is 2146.67 with a standard deviation
of 668.585.Mean Value of daily expenditure in the canteen (in rupees) is 72.07 with a standard
deviation of 17.107.Here, the sample size is 15 for both variables. The range for Monthly pocket
money received is 1350 to 3000 Rs, and for Daily Canteen Expenditure is 45 to 98 Rs. The
average value of the variable is calculated by summing up all the observations and dividing by
the sample size.A low standard deviation indicates that the observations are clustered around
the mean, while a high standard deviation indicates that the observations are more spread out.
For Monthly pocket money received, the standard deviation is 668.545 Rs, and for Daily
Canteen Expenditure, the standard deviation is 17.107 Rs. Both variables have an observably
moderate standard deviation, which means the data is moderately spread out.
Ans 3:
On running the regression with said variables we can see that we have an R squared value of
0.778 which means that our model is relatively well explained as it explains about 77.8% of the
variation in the dependent variable.
To estimate the regression treating Daily expenditure in canteen (X4) as the dependent variable
and Monthly pocket Money Received (X3) as independent variables, we need a linear
regression model. The model is:
X4 = β0 + β1*X3 + u
where X4 is the daily expenditure in the canteen, X3 is the monthly pocket money received, β0
is the intercept, β1 is the coefficient of X3 and u is the error term.
The change in daily spending at the canteen for a one-unit increase in the amount of monthly
pocket money received is represented by the B1 coefficient. In other words, it calculates how
much pocket money has an impact on everyday spending. A positive B1 coefficient means that
while the monthly allowance rises, the daily canteen expenses rise as well, and vice versa.
the adjusted R-squared value of 0.761 suggests that the model is not overfitting the data, as the
adjusted R-squared adjusts for the number of predictors in the model. Overall, the goodness of
fit of the model appears to be relatively good
Beta1:
H0: Beta1=/=0
Ha: Beta1=0
Alpha = 0.05
T value for Beta1 (from the first table) =3.150
T value (critical) = 2.131.
As the T value for Beta 1 is greater than the critical value, we reject H0 Beta 1 is insignificant.
Beta2:
H0: Beta2=/=0
Ha: Beta2=0
Alpha = 0.05
T value for Beta2 (from the first table) =6.745
T value (critical) = 2.131.
As the T value for Beta 2 is greater than the critical value, we reject H0, andBeta 2 is
insignificant
H0: R^2=/=0
Ha: R^2=0
F=[(R^2)/(k−1)] / [(1-R^2)/(n−k)]
In F distribution table :
Num=k-1=1
Den=n-k=13
R^2 value is .778
F stat = 45.76447
F critical = 4.67 67 (from the F table)
As F stat> F critical, We H0 is rejected