stat170 (1 Viewer)

[*hopeful*]

hey, if any1'z done any of the past papers, can sum1 plz tell me how to do:
Q7,part b and c from end of yr 2003 paper

im not sure if im using the right formula or rite numbers ?

 

[crazy_panda_eye]

I think...
I know this may be too late, but while we're on the topic of stat.
Does anyone know how to do question 4 part e) for the second 2002 past paper...what kind of question is that T . T

 

[redruM]

could someone link the question or post it?

 

[crazy_panda_eye]

mine or his...
If mine~

 

[redruM]

i dont know, sorry. i thought perhaps it was because it was outside the sample data, but it isnt. unless they meant 55.

hmm...you might look at the correlation coefficient. its is very low. hence, only 0.1% of the variability in LOS is explained by the variability in age. therefore, it isnt sensible.

edit: post hopeful's question too if you got it handy.

 

[*hopeful*]

yeh panda eye, its cuz the values r 2 low and u gotta look at t and p values as well
n btw panda im not a 'him' ! (in ref 2 ur post above)

i fixed up my qstn so thanx newayz guys

 

[crazy_panda_eye]

Thanks guys for the help ^_^

And to *hopeful* missy...I am soooooooo sorry

 

[redruM]

yeh panda eye, its cuz the values r 2 low and u gotta look at t and p values as well
n btw panda im not a 'him' ! (in ref 2 ur post above)

i fixed up my qstn so thanx newayz guys

yep. good point.

a t-value of -0.2007 would make you retain Ho. ie- relationship between age and los would not be statistically significant. i should have seen that

 

[sukiyaki]

offtopic:
crazy panda eye i love your sig <3 because i am girl