Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Regression
increase.
Now the researcher collects data. In this case we can use data collected by
governmental agencies.
Illinois rates of crime by year
Year
Violen
t
Propert
Crime y crime Unemployme
rate rate
nt rate
Year
Violen
t
Propert
Crime y crime Unemployme
rate rate
nt rate
1975
670
5,033
8.5
1991
1039 5,093
6.8
1976
626
4,830
7.7
1992
977
4,788
7.5
1977
631
4,697
7.1
1993
960
4,658
6.9
1978
677
4,943
6.1
1994
961
4,665
6.1
1979
744
5,287
5.8
1995
996
4,460
5.6
1980
808
5,461
7.1
1996
890
4,430
5.4
1981
793
5,323
7.6
1997
861
4,280
4.9
1982
774
5,066
9.7
1998
808
4,051
4.5
1983
728
4,813
9.6
1999
690
3,825
4.2
1984
725
4,579
7.5
2000
654
3,585
4.0
1985
715
4,597
7.2
2001
637
3,461
4.7
1986
809
4,746
7.0
2002
602
3,420
5.8
1987
796
4,620
6.2
2003
556
3,288
6.0
1988
810
4,810
5.5
2004
546
3,174
5.5
1989
846
4,793
5.3
2005
552
3,080
5.1
1990
967
4,968
5.6
Crime rates are from the FBI, Uniform Crime Reports as prepared by the National
Archive of Criminal Justice Data
An Excel procedure has calculated and drawn a linear regression line and given us
the equation in the upper right corner of the graph. From it we can see that in
general as unemployment increases so does the rate of property crime. The
regression formula in the top right corner of the graph indicates that the best
estimate of property crime is 270.08 times the unemployment rate. In other words,
for every 1% increase in unemployment, property crime appears in increase by 270
crimes per 100,000 people in the population.
When the correlation of .577 is squared the researcher finds that about 33% of the
variance is shared between the two variables. Sometimes this shared variance is
called "explained variance." Thus, the research claims that 33% of the changes in
property crime rates can be attributed to changes in the unemployment rate. (A
part of this interpretation rests with some logical assumptions, not statistical
rational.)
Our researcher (R1) publishes, and waits. One knows that once put out in public
some other researcher will come along to test ones findings.
And so it comes, a second researcher (R2) says "Yes, but...."
R2 presents a different graph. In this graph the Unemployment and Property
Crime data are graphed as they chronologically occurred.
It is very clear that there has been a major trend down in property crime and
unemployment from 1975 to 2005. The three upward peaks in the unemployment
rate (pink line) are not reflected in the property crime rates. Both rates have
declined more or less together across the years. The correlation between the rates
is the result of this shared patter over time.So here then is an alternative
explanation. The original hypothesis must now be rejected. However, note that
the correlations are still very true and accurate. But, the issue is that
other exogenous variables were not included.
R2 published the following summary from a SPSS regression procedure.
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Regression
(Constant)
Std.
Error
Standardiz
ed
Coefficien
ts
Beta
95% Confidence
Interval for B
Sig Lower
.
Bound
Upper
Bound
129615.5 19891.2
30
53
.
6.51
00
6
0
88870.1 170360.9
45
16
-62.869
-.860
.
6.37 00
8
0
-83.062
-.009
.
-.06
94
8
7
-133.424 124.893
Year
Unemploym
ent rate
-4.265
9.857
63.053
-42.677
Bottom line - statistical tests can only find "truth" within the specifications of the
model provided. In this example, the second graph showed a truth that the first
graph did not indicate. Statistics are strong tools, but they are not omnipotent
(with my apologies to philosophers who will point out the logical fallacy of this
statement). Taking a moment to step back and look at patterns, and alternatives is
an important part of research and model building.
2. You want to find a measure of central tendency for income of persons who have
boarded a particular train on a particular date at the originating station. What
measure will you use and why? What measure will you choose for dispersion and
why? (10 marks)
That is, the probability that both A and B occur is equal to the probability that A
occurs times the probability that B occurs.
If A and B are mutually exclusive, then
Pr[A and B] = 0;
That is, the probability that both A and B occur is zero. Clearly, if A and B are
nontrivial events (Pr[A] and Pr[B] are nonzero), then they cannot be both
independent and mutually exclusive.
Lets say there are two events A and B
Mutually Exclusive implies -- If event A occurs, event B can't occur and vice versa.
Independent Event implies - Event A and B don't influence each other, in other
words event A occurring gives us no extra information of event B occurring.
Examples
In a coin tosses you can only have heads and tails; If you get a head you will not
get a tail. So for a single coin toss Occurrence of head and tail is mutually
exclusive.
Whereas if you have two coins, you toss them together, getting a head in 1st coin
has no influence on 2nd coin, so occurrence of head in two different coins are
independent events.
3 B) In how many ways can the letters of the word MADAM be rearranged? (5
marks)
Ans: The question is that of Permutation and contains repeating Letters in the
Word MADAM.
The trick is:
Step 1: Count the number of Letters you have (Ans : 5)