Lokesh Kumar Byrica

PGEMP62/A/06
Quantitative Methods – Assignment: 02

Assessed Value Size of Houses

House Age (years)
$ (square feet)

1 184400 2000 3.42 A) In Given Data we have

2 177400 1710 11.5
3 175700 1450 8.33 One dependent Variance (Z) - Assessed
4 185900 1760 0 Two Independent Variables - X (Size of
5 179100 1930 7.42
6 170400 1200 32 We propose following linear equation s
7 175800 1550 16
8 185900 1930 2 Z = A + B(X) + C(Y) + Standard Error
9 178500 1590 1.75
10 179200 1500 2.75 where A, B & C are constants
11 186700 1900 0
12 179300 1390 0 From Data Analysis, we have
13 174500 1540 12.58 found that
14 183800 1890 2.75 Hence, the relation ship between Asset
15 176800 1590 7.17
Asset Value = 163.77 + 10.73 X (Size of
Corelation
Assed Value Size of House Age B) Mean Assessed value for House =
Assed Value X
Size of House 0.81 X
-0.80 -0.58 X C) i. From Age v/s Residual Plot and Size o
Age along with size of house and age which

ii. House 1,7 & 10 are having low resid

iii. House 2,3,4,5,6,8,9 are having high
 Batch No:62
Contact 0
Methods – Assignment: 02

ata we have

ndent Variance (Z) - Assessed Value

endent Variables - X (Size of Houses), y (Age)

e following linear equation showing relationship between the three variables

) + C(Y) + Standard Error

& C are constants

Analysis, we have A = 163.77 B = 10.73 C = -284.2543 (R Square - 0.83, P values < 0.05)
Standard Error = 2168
relation ship between Asset Value , Size of House and Age is as Follows

e = 163.77 + 10.73 X (Size of House) - 284.2543 X (Age) + 2168

ssed value for House = $ 18,266.73

e v/s Residual Plot and Size of Plot v/s Residual Plot we can infer that some other variable is also influencing the assed value
size of house and age which has not been captured.

,7 & 10 are having low residuals, indicating Linear relationship between assessed value, size of house and Age as proposed by us
2,3,4,5,6,8,9 are having high residuals indicating that proposed model doesn't suit these
g the assed value

Age as proposed by us
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.9091201073
R Square 0.8264993695
Adjusted R Square 0.7975825977
Standard Error 2168.16552667
Observations 15

ANOVA
df SS MS
Regression 2 268724698.9875 134362349.493758
Residual 12 56411301.01248 4700941.75104028
Total 14 325136000

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat

Intercept 163775.123596695 5407.173151586 30.2884925275
Size of Houses (square feet) 10.7251829804 3.0143271893 3.5580686192
Age (years) -284.2543480139 83.5983591402 -3.4002383652

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation Predicted Assessed Value $ Residuals Standard Residuals

1 184253.339687196 146.6603128042 0.0730623382
2 178846.261490941 -1446.26149094 -0.7204897097
3 176958.800199253 -1258.80019925 -0.6271013892
4 182651.445642118 3248.554357882 1.6183449541
5 182365.559486516 -3265.55948652 -1.6268164651
6 167549.204036676 2850.795963324 1.4201921083
7 175851.087648022 -51.0876480221 -0.0254505322
8 183906.218052751 1993.781947249 0.993250104
9 180330.719426434 -1830.71942643 -0.9120166141
10 179081.198610188 118.8013898121 0.0591837502
11 184152.971259368 2547.028740632 1.26886321
12 178683.127939387 616.8720606129 0.3073095527
13 176715.985688426 -2215.98568843 -1.1039462056
14 183264.019972526 535.9800274739 0.267011254
15 178790.060860199 -1990.0608602 -0.9913963556
 Size of Houses (square feet) Residual Plot
4000
2000
Residuals 0
11001200130014001500160017001800190020002100
-2000
-4000
Size of Houses (square feet)

F Significance F
Age (years) Residual Plot
28.58201 2.72776118203818E-05 4000
2000

Residuals
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-2000
P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
-4000
1.05E-12 151993.905361787 175556.3 151993.9 175556.3
Age (years)
0.003938 4.1575282274 17.29284 4.157528 17.29284
0.005267 -466.3995254476 -102.109 -466.4 -102.109

PROBABILITY OUTPUT

Percentile Assessed Value $

3.3333333333 170400
10 174500
16.6666666667 175700
23.3333333333 175800
30 176800
36.6666666667 177400
43.3333333333 178500
50 179100
56.6666666667 179200
63.3333333333 179300
70 183800
76.6666666667 184400
83.3333333333 185900
90 185900
96.6666666667 186700
) Residual Plot

0 15 20 25 30 35

Age (years)
 Lokesh Kumar Byrica
PGEMP62/A/06
Quantitative Methods – Assignment: 02

No. of delivery Advertisement No. of Varieties Competitors

S. no. Sales boys cost outlets of Pizza activity index
1 81 15 20000 35 17 4
2 23 10 12000 10 13 4
3 18 7 11000 14 14 3
4 8 2 6000 9 13 3
5 16 4 10000 11 12 4
6 4 1 5000 6 12 5
7 29 4 14000 15 15 2
8 22 7 12000 16 16 3
9 15 5 10000 18 15 4
10 6 3 5000 8 13 2
11 45 13 17000 20 14 2
12 11 2 9000 10 12 3
13 20 5 12000 15 12 3
14 60 12 18000 30 15 4
15 5 1 5000 6 12 5
 Batch No:62
Contact 0
Methods – Assignment: 02

No. of existing
customers
70000 A) In Given Data we have
43000
31000 One dependent Variance (Z) - Sales
10000 Six Independent Variables - S (No of delivery boys), T (Advertisement cost), U (No. of Outlets), V
17000 (Varities of Pizza), W (Competitors activity Index), X (No. of existing customers)
8000
39000 We propose following linear equation showing relationship between the three variables
40000
30000 Z = A + B(S) + C(T) + D(U) + E(V) + F(W) + G(X) + Standard Error
16000
30000 where A, B, C, D, E, F & G are constants
20000
25000 From Data Analysis, we have A = 6.372 B = 0.92 C = 0.001 (R Square - 0.95, P values < 0.0
50000 found that D = 1.62 E = -1.98 F = 0.07 G = 0.0002
20000

Hence, our proposed equation is not valid as Sales is dependent on No. of Outlets only.
So, new equation proposed is
Z = A+ D(U)
From Data Analysis, we have A = -13.01 (R Square - 0.90, P values < 0.0000005 for No. of Out
found that D = 2.5 Standard Error = 6.91

Sales = -13.01+ 2.5 X No. of Outlets + 6.91

R = 0.95 R2 = 0.91

The R and R2 values are closer to 1, this implies that the predicted linear relationship model is be
suiting for the given data
nt cost), U (No. of Outlets), V
customers)

n the three variables

(R Square - 0.95, P values < 0.05 for No. of Outlets only)

No. of Outlets only.

ues < 0.0000005 for No. of Outlets only)

linear relationship model is best

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.9764012718
R Square 0.9533594436
Adjusted R Square 0.9183790263
Standard Error 6.2603561839
Observations 15

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 6 6408.863524 1068.144 27.25409006 6.58E-05
Residual 8 313.5364764 39.19206
Total 14 6722.4

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%

Intercept
No. of delivery boys
Advertisement cost
No. of outlets
Varieties of Pizza
Competitors activity index
No. of existing customers
6.3719457112 32.58644457 0.19554
0.9187876515 0.909790237 1.00989
0.0006992226 0.001303175 0.536553
1.6204469616 0.618359882 2.620556
-1.9779707153 2.30988183 -0.85631
0.066646791 2.211028909 0.030143
0.0002415713 0.0002989 0.8082
0.849845642 -68.7725 81.51642
0.342113879 -1.17919 3.016768
0.606170903 -0.00231 0.003704
0.030623991 0.194507 3.046387
0.416737431 -7.30457 3.348626
0.976691522 -5.032 5.165289
0.442343184 -0.00045 0.000931

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation Predicted Sales Residuals

1 74.4049335135 6.595066487
2 25.0954976352 -2.09549764
3 23.1782267028 -5.1782267
4 3.8909136897 4.10908631
5 15.5018901557 0.498109844
6 -0.9603158092 4.960315809
7 24.0279315949 4.972068405
8 25.3365435959 -3.3365436
9 24.9703213678 -9.97032137
10 3.8728127752 2.127187225
11 42.3007521739 2.699247826
12 12.0027123694 -1.00271237
13 26.1668346055 -6.16683461
14 61.2724057692 -1.27240577
15 1.9385398605 3.061460139
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
-68.7725 81.51642
-1.17919 3.016768
-0.00231 0.003704
0.194507 3.046387
-7.30457 3.348626
-5.032 5.165289
-0.00045 0.000931
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.9526746583
R Square 0.9075890046
Adjusted R Square 0.9004804665
Standard Error 6.9127734343
Observations 15

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 6101.176 6101.176 127.67590063 4.29E-08
Residual 13 621.2237 47.78644
Total 14 6722.4

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%

Lower 95.0%
Intercept -13.0134876078 3.745973 -3.47399 0.0041142423 -21.1062 -4.9208 -21.1062
No. of outlets 2.5031493907 0.22153 11.29938 0.0000000429 2.024563 2.981736 2.024563

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation Predicted Sales Residuals

1 74.5967410653 6.403259
2 12.0180062988 10.98199
3 22.0306038614 -4.0306
4 9.5148569081 -1.51486
5 14.5211556894 1.478844
6 2.0054087361 1.994591
7 24.5337532521 4.466247
8 27.0369026427 -5.0369
9 32.0432014241 -17.0432
10 7.0117075175 -1.01171
11 37.0495002054 7.9505
12 12.0180062988 -1.01801
13 24.5337532521 -4.53375
14 62.080994112 -2.08099
15 2.0054087361 2.994591
Upper 95.0%
-4.9208
2.981736
 Lokesh Kumar Byrica
PGEMP62/A/06
Quantitative Methods – Assignment: 02

Years at Other debt in Debt to income Household Years with current Credit card debt
Age current income in
address thousands ratio (x100) employer in thousands
thousands
41 12 5010 0.093 176000 17 11360
27 6 4000 0.173 31000 10 1360
40 14 2170 0.055 55000 15 860
41 14 820 0.029 120000 15 2660
24 0 3060 0.173 28000 2 1790
41 5 2160 0.102 25000 5 390
39 9 16670 0.306 67000 20 3830
43 11 1240 0.036 38000 12 130
24 4 3280 0.244 19000 3 1360
36 13 2150 0.197 25000 0 2780
27 1 90 0.017 16000 0 180
25 0 940 0.052 23000 4 250
52 14 2470 0.1 64000 24 3930
37 9 3010 0.163 29000 6 1720
48 15 5400 0.091 100000 22 3700
36 6 3400 0.086 49000 9 820
36 6 3810 0.164 41000 13 2920
43 19 4290 0.076 72000 23 1180
39 9 2910 0.057 61000 6 560
41 21 340 0.017 26000 0 100
 Batch No:62
Contact 0
tive Methods – Assignment: 02

Customer A)
risk
In Given Data we have
0.45
0.55 One dependent Variance (Z) - Customer Risk
0.65 Seven Independent Variables - S (Age), T (Years with Current Employer), U (Years at current
0.75 (Household income), W (Debt to income ratio), X (Credit card debt), Y (Other debt)
0.55
0.95 We propose following linear equation showing relationship between the three variables
0.32
0.88 Z = A + B(S) + C(T) + D(U) + E(V) + F(W) + G(X) + H(Y) + Standard Error
0.65
0.87 where A, B, C, D, E, F, G & H are constants
0.64
0.72 From Data Analysis, we have A = -0.0019B = 0.024 C = -0.005
0.71 found that D = -0.021 E = 0 F = 1.76
0.86 Hence, the revised linear equation showing relation between Customer risk and factors is a
0.58
0.88 Z = A + B(S) + D(U) + F(W) + H(Y) + Standard Error
0.77
0.57 From Data Analysis, we have A = 0.201 B = 0.01856
0.65 found that D = -0.019 F = -0.00005
0.5
Age & Other debt has direct influence on customer risk and Years at current address has
rent Employer), U (Years at current address), V
card debt), Y (Other debt)

hip between the three variables

andard Error

(R Square - 0.75, P values < 0.05 for Age, Years at current address, debt to income ratio, other debt only)
G=0 H=0
ween Customer risk and factors is as follows

H = 1.2

and Years at current address has inverse relation to customer risk.

er debt only)
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.867935
R Square 0.753311
Adjusted R Square 0.609409
Standard Error 0.102543
Observations 20

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 7 0.385319 0.055046 5.23489 0.006222
Residual 12 0.126181 0.010515
Total 19 0.5115

Coefficients
Intercept
Age
Years with current employer
Years at current address
Household income in thousands
Debt to income ratio (x100)
Credit card debt in thousands
Other debt in thousands
Standard Error t Stat
-0.00192 0.206226 -0.00931
0.023817 0.006145 3.875905
-0.00519 0.005481 -0.94708
-0.02125 0.006565 -3.2374
2.02E-06 1.74E-06 1.157954
1.755406 0.667266 2.630744
-4.22E-05 2.29E-05 -1.84532
-4.93E-05 1.31E-05 -3.77029
P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%Lower 95.0%
0.992725 -0.45125 0.447408 -0.45125
0.002204 0.010428 0.037205 0.010428
0.362278 -0.01713 0.006751 -0.01713
0.007121 -0.03556 -0.00695 -0.03556
0.26941 -1.78E-06 5.81E-06 -1.78E-06
0.021946 0.301558 3.209255 0.301558
0.089799 -9.21E-05 7.63E-06 -9.21E-05
0.00267 -7.78E-05 -2.08E-05 -7.78E-05

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation Predicted Customer

Residuals
risk
1 0.422408 0.027592
2 0.573161 -0.02316
3 0.639401 0.010599
4 0.739152 0.010848
5 0.69291 -0.14291
6 0.948787 0.001213
7 0.320156 -0.00016
8 0.799262 0.080738
9 0.716509 -0.06651
10 0.751942 0.118058
11 0.669928 -0.02993
12 0.653457 0.066543
13 0.831154 -0.12115
14 0.780364 0.079636
15 0.647 -0.067
16 0.728662 0.151338
17 0.719777 0.050223
18 0.516119 0.053881
19 0.760354 -0.11035
20 0.589498 -0.0895
Upper 95.0%
0.447408
0.037205
0.006751
-0.00695
5.81E-06
3.209255
7.63E-06
-2.08E-05
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.8016386859
R Square 0.6426245827
Adjusted R Square 0.5473244714
Standard Error 0.1103924895
Observations 20

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 4 0.328702 0.082176 6.743167 0.00259
Residual 15 0.182798 0.012187
Total 19 0.5115

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%

Intercept
Age
Years at current address
Other debt in thousands
Debt to income ratio (x100)
0.2012091458 0.179169 1.123011
0.0185650063 0.005547 3.34698
-0.018946237 0.006786 -2.79176
-5.01656561178856E-05 1.16E-05 -4.33758
1.197552826 0.522481 2.292052
0.279086 -0.18068 0.583099
0.004413 0.006742 0.030388
0.013685 -0.03341 -0.00448
0.000586 -7.48E-05 -2.55E-05
0.036785 0.083912 2.311194

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation Predicted Customer risk Residuals

1 0.5950620373 -0.14506
2 0.5953009093 -0.0453
3 0.635568013 0.014432
4 0.6907202816 0.05928
5 0.700439029 -0.15044
6 0.8814357916 0.068564
7 0.2849179372 0.035082
8 0.7720022995 0.107998
9 0.6986438873 -0.04864
10 0.751310039 0.11869
11 0.6993615688 -0.05936
12 0.6804513343 0.039549
13 0.8971882693 -0.18719
14 0.761800733 0.098199
15 0.6462186592 -0.06622
16 0.6882982641 0.191702
17 0.7611394656 0.008861
18 0.5153292654 0.054671
19 0.6770067117 -0.02701
20 0.5678055037 -0.06781
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
-0.18068 0.583099
0.006742 0.030388
-0.03341 -0.00448
-7.48E-05 -2.55E-05
0.083912 2.311194
 Lokesh Kumar Byrica
PGEMP62/A/06
Quantitative Methods – Assignment: 02

Total market
Months Total sales Total profit A)
capitalization In Given Data we have
October’ 03 714035 856610 66240
May’ 04 1127252 928986 83152 One dependent Variance (Z)
Dec’ 04 1277421 933035 87907
Two Independent Variables -
June’ 05 1459099 1110214 107162
Feb’ 06 1827124 1228046 128107
Aug' 06 2293549 1385556 140437 We propose following linear

Total market Total sales Total profit

capitalization Z = A + B(X) + C(Y) + Standard
Total market X
capitalization
Total sales 0.9740120144 X where A, B, C are constants
Total profit 0.9424119461 0.98662302 X
From Data Analysis, we have
found that
Hence, model cannot be reje
Market Capitalization = -618
Conclusion: From the residu
limiting the use of this mode
 Batch No:62
Contact 0
Methods – Assignment: 02

In Given Data we have

One dependent Variance (Z) - Total market Capitalization

Two Independent Variables - X (Total Sales), Y (Total Profit)

We propose following linear equation showing relationship between the three variables

Z = A + B(X) + C(Y) + Standard Error

where A, B, C are constants

From Data Analysis, we have A = -618407 B = 0.31 C = 16.99 (R Square - 0.968, P values > 0.05 for Total Sales and Total profit
found that F value > P value
Hence, model cannot be rejected.
Market Capitalization = -618407 + 0.31 X Total Sales + 16.99 X Total profit
Conclusion: From the residual plots we can see that as sales & profit values increase, the residual variance is also increasing, thus
limiting the use of this models for higher values of sales and profit.
 for Total Sales and Total profit)

ance is also increasing, thus

SUMMARY OUTPUT
Total sales Res
Regression Statistics
150000
Multiple R 0.984309 100000
R Square 0.968864 50000

Residuals
Adjusted R Square 0.948107 0
-50000
800000 1000000 12
Standard Error 125991.5 -100000
Observations 6 -150000
Total
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 2 1481852513707 7.41E+11 46.67587 0.0054940494
Residual 3 47621583774 1.59E+10
Total 5 1529474097481

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept -618407 617358.5158428 -1.0017 0.390301 -2583116.93269623 1346304
Total sales 0.309033 1.6854619164 0.183352 0.866214 -5.0548585769 5.672926
Total profit 16.99495 12.1925470407 1.39388 0.257659 -21.8071786602 55.79707

RESIDUAL OUTPUT PROBABILITY OUTPUT

Observation
Predicted Total market capitalization
ResidualsStandard Residuals PercentileTotal market capitalization
1 772059.9 -58024.8877431 -0.59456 8.3333333333 714035
2 1081845 45406.95153387 0.46527 25 1127252
3 1163907 113513.6990671 1.163138 41.6666666667 1277421
4 1545899 -86800.2588706 -0.88941 58.3333333333 1459099
5 1938272 -111148.468842 -1.1389 75 1827124
6 2196496 97052.96485435 0.99447 91.6666666667 2293549
 Total sales Residual Plot Total profit Residual Plot
150000
100000 150000
50000 100000
50000

Residuals
0
-50000
800000 1000000 1200000 1400000 1600000 0
-100000 -50000
60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000
-150000 -100000
-150000
Total sales
Total profit

Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
-2583117 1346304
-5.05486 5.672926
-21.8072 55.79707

market capitalization
l Plot

0 140000 160000
 Lokesh Kumar Byrica
PGEMP62/A/06
Quantitative Methods – Assignment: 02

Cost of Milk (per Distance from A)

Gallon) Madison (miles) We presume that the distance of Milk source from
$ 2.64 1245
$ 2.31 425 One dependent Variance (Y) - Cost of Milk (per Gall
$ 2.45 1346
One Independent Variable - X (Distance from Madis
$ 2.52 973
$ 2.19 255
$ 2.55 865 We propose following linear equation showing rela
$ 2.40 1080
$ 2.37 296 Y = A + B(X) + Standard Error

where A & B are constants

From Data Analysis, we have

found that

Cost of Milk =

Most of the residuals are at equidistance from the

a healthy one.
 Batch No:62
Contact 0
hods – Assignment: 02

distance of Milk source from Madison effects the cost of Milk and the relation between the two is a linear relationship.

nce (Y) - Cost of Milk (per Gallon)

able - X (Distance from Madison in Miles)

linear equation showing relationship between the three variables

A = 2.226 B = 0.00025 (R Square - 0.57, P values < 0.05 for Distance from Madison)

2.226 + 0.00025 (Distance from Madison)

are at equidistance from the zero line and it can be said that the relation established between distance and cost of milk is
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.7537798255
R Square 0.5681840253
Adjusted R Square 0.4962146962
Standard Error 0.1016203676
Observations 8

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 0.081527 0.081527 7.894807862 0.030765
Residual 6 0.06196 0.010327
Total 7 0.143488

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%

Intercept 2.2257058718 0.080702 27.5792 1.502641E-07 2.028234
Distance from Madison (miles) 0.0002504785 8.91E-05 2.80977 0.030765496 3.23E-05

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation Predicted Cost of Milk (per Gallon)Residuals

1 2.5375515953 0.102448
2 2.3321592312 -0.02216
3 2.5628499231 -0.11285
4 2.4694214453 0.050579
5 2.2895778874 -0.09958
6 2.442369768 0.10763
7 2.496222644 -0.09622
8 2.2998475056 0.070152
 Distance from Madison (miles) Residual Plot
0.15
0.1
0.05

Residuals
0
-0.05200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
-0.1
-0.15
Distance from Madison (miles)
Significance F

Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
2.423177 2.028234 2.423177
0.000469 3.23E-05 0.000469
 Lokesh Kumar Byrica
PGEMP62/A/06
Quantitative Method

Sales Number of Units

Chain We presume that there is a linear relationship
($ billions) (1000)
McDonald's 17.1 12.4
Burger King 7.9 7.5 One dependent Variance (Y) - Sales ($ billions)
Taco Bell 4.8 6.8
One Independent Variable - X (Number of Unit
Pizza Hut 4.7 8.7
Wendy's 4.6 4.6
KFC 4 5.1 We propose following linear equation showing
Subway 2.9 11.2
Dairy Queen 2.7 5.1 Y = A + B(X) + Standard Error
Hardee's 2.7 2.9
where A & B are constants

From Data Analysis, we have found that

F Value > P Value, so the model cannot be reje

Sales = -0.86 + 0.92 X Number of units + error
every 1000 units increase th sales by $ 0.92 bil
Residual Plots
The variance in error is not constant, it is sma
units sold.
McDonald's and Subway are the outliers in the
 Batch No:62
Contact 0
Quantitative Methods – Assignment: 02

here is a linear relationship between number of units sold and sales

riance (Y) - Sales ($ billions)

Variable - X (Number of Units 1000's)

ng linear equation showing relationship between the three variables

A = -0.86 B = 0.92 (R Square - 0.405, P values > 0.05 for Number of Units sold)
, we have found that

o the model cannot be rejected.

2 X Number of units + error
crease th sales by $ 0.92 billion.

or is not constant, it is small for small values of units sold and high for high values of

bway are the outliers in the data series.

or Number of Units sold)
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.6361259018
R Square 0.4046561629
Adjusted R Square 0.3196070433
Standard Error 3.7636201147
Observations 9

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 67.39503 67.39503 4.75791125 0.0655183643
Residual 7 99.15385 14.16484
Total 8 166.5489

CoefficientsStandard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept -0.863565285 3.264817 -0.26451 0.799008515 -8.5836298198 6.856499
Number of Units (1000) 0.9202501955 0.421889 2.181264 0.065518364 -0.0773577268 1.917858

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Predicted Sales
Observation ($ billions) Residuals
1 10.547537138 6.552463
2 6.0383111806 1.861689
3 5.3941360438 -0.59414
4 7.1426114152 -2.44261
5 3.3695856138 1.230414
6 3.8297107115 0.170289
7 9.4432369038 -6.54324
8 3.8297107115 -1.12971
9 1.8051602815 0.89484
 Number of Units (1000) Residual Plot
10
5

Residuals
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-5
-10
Number of Units (1000)

Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
-8.58363 6.856499
-0.07736 1.917858
 Lokesh Kumar Byrica
PGEMP62/A/06
Quantitative Methods – Assignment: 02

Fisheries 1977 2009 Predicted Value Residual Residual Square

New England 581 646 640.2899128812 5.7100871 32.6050949046
Mid_Atlantic 213 200 -291.3514554331 491.35146 241426.25275624
Chesapeake 668 473 860.5420841946 -387.5421 150188.8670219
South Atlantic 345 113 42.8242527666 70.175747 4924.6354997691
Gulf of Mexico 1476 1420 2906.1024798412 -1486.102 2208500.5805901
Pacific-Alaska 1776 4972 3665.5927257496 1306.4073 1706699.9662144
5059 4311772.9071774
Avg 843.16667
Model
2009 landings = 2.532 X 1977 landings - 830.59 1977 Residual Plot
If 1977 landings = 700 1500
2009 landings = 2.532 X 700 - 830.59 1000
= 941.81 500

Residuals
0
-500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 180
-1000
-1500
-2000
1977
 Batch No:62
Contact 0
antitative Methods – Assignment: 02

X2
337561 y - mean 941.81
45369 Standard Error 1038.2404
446224 a 0.05 a/2 0.025
119025 df 4
2178576 t 0.025, 4 2.776
3154176 1/n 0.1666667
6280931
Confidence Interval = 941 +/- 1212.0036
(941-1212 , 941+1212)
77 Residual Plot
t-stat = 3.46211179

As t value is not equal to zero, the slope of the model is significantly

different from zero
400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Conclusion - Residual Plots
The variance in error is not constant, it is high for high values o
landings and low for low values of landings.
1977
del is significantly

it is high for high values of

ndings.
SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics 1977 R

Multiple R 0.86587 2000
R Square 0.74973
1000

Residuals
Adjusted R 0.687163
0
Standard E 1038.24
0 200 400
Observatio 6 -1000
-2000
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 12916729 12916729 11.98275 0.02578
Residual 4 4311773 1077943
Total 5 17228502

Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%
Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
Intercept -830.59 748.2711 -1.11001 0.329226 -2908.12 1246.944 -2908.12 1246.944
1977 2.531634 0.731346 3.461612 0.02578 0.501093 4.562175 0.501093 4.562175

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation
Predicted 2009
Residuals
1 640.2899 5.710087
2 -291.351 491.3515
3 860.5421 -387.542
4 42.82425 70.17575
5 2906.102 -1486.1
6 3665.593 1306.407
 1977 Residual Plot
2000
1000
Residuals

0
0 200 400 600 800 100012001400160018002000
-1000
-2000
1977
 Lokesh Kumar Byrica
PGEMP62/A/06
Quantitative Methods – Ass

Advertising Revenues Predicted

Company ($ millions) ($ billions) Value Residual
Wal-Mart 1073 408.2 873.770 199.230
Procter & Gamble 4898 79.7 3194.282 1703.718
AT&T 3345 123 2888.412 456.588
General Motors 3296 104.6 3018.389 277.611
Verizon 2822 107.8 2995.784 -173.784
Ford Motor 2577 118.3 2921.613 -344.613
Hewlett-Packard 829 114.6 2947.749 -2118.749
Sum 18840
Model
Advertising Cost = -7.064 * Revenue + 3757.28
 Batch No:62
Contact 0
Quantitative Methods – Assignment: 02

Residual Square X2
39692.516 1151329 Standard Error 1254.2685
2902655.829 23990404 N = 7
208472.417 11189025 1/n = 0.1428571
77067.809 10863616 t stat = -1.577273
30201.027 7963684 t 0.025, 5 2.571
118757.999 6640929 Observed t value = -19.32981
4489099.377 687241
7865946.9729307 62486228 Conclusion:
since observed t stat value is in rejection zone, the slope of the regression lin
significantly different from zero

Residual Plots
The variance in error is not constant, it is high for small values of revenue an
high values of revenue.
h No:62
ntact 0

3757.2795

-7.063962

e, the slope of the regression line is also far

h for small values of revenue and low for

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.5764081347
R Square 0.3322463378
Adjusted R Square 0.1986956053
Standard Error 1254.2684699004
Observations 7

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 3913767 3913767 2.487791 0.175559
Residual 5 7865947 1573189
Total 6 11779714

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%Upper 95%

Intercept 3757.2795479637 825.4615 4.551732 0.006103 1635.363 5879.196
Revenues
($ billions) -7.0639621622 4.478591 -1.57727 0.175559 -18.5765 4.448622

RESIDUAL OUTPUT

Observation Predicted Advertising ($ millions) Residuals

1 873.770193342 199.2298
2 3194.2817636341 1703.718
3 2888.4122020096 456.5878
4 3018.3891057946 277.6109
5 2995.7844268755 -173.784
6 2921.6128241721 -344.613
7 2947.7494841723 -2118.75
 Revenues
($ billions) Residual Plot
2000

Residuals
0
-2000 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
-4000
Revenues
($ billions)

Lower 95.0%
Upper 95.0%
1635.363 5879.196

-18.5765 4.448622