/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 183 Does pre-season success indicate... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

Does pre-season success indicate regular season success in the US National Football League? We looked at the number of preseason wins and regular season wins for all 32 NFL teams over a 10 -year span. (a) What would a positive association imply about the relationship between pre-season and regular season success in the NFL? What would a negative association imply? (b) The correlation between these two variables is \(r=0.067\). What does this correlation tell you about the strength of a linear relationship between these two variables?

Short Answer

Expert verified
A positive association implies teams with more wins in the preseason also have more wins in the regular season. A negative association implies the opposite, teams with more preseason wins tend to have fewer regular season wins. The correlation coefficient \(r=0.067\) tells us that there is a very weak positive correlation between preseason and regular season wins.

Step by step solution

01

Interpretation of positive and negative association

Part (a) of the question asks about the implications of positive and negative association. From this, a positive association would imply that teams that have more preseason wins also tend to have more regular season wins. A negative association, on the other hand, would imply that teams that have more preseason wins tend to have fewer regular season wins.
02

Interpretation of correlation

Part (b) of the question mentions a correlation coefficient of \(r = 0.067\). This is a value very close to 0, which indicates a very weak positive correlation between preseason wins and regular season wins. This suggests that there is almost no linear relationship between these two variables and preseason success does not strongly predict regular season success.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Positive Association
A positive association in statistics refers to a relationship between two variables where if one variable increases, the other tends to increase as well. It's like having a seesaw that goes up on both ends. Think of it as a friendship where whenever one friend is happy, the other one is usually happy too. In the context of the NFL example, a positive association would mean that as teams win more games during the preseason, they also win more games during the regular season.
A positive association can be visualized on a scatterplot. Points would generally rise together, moving from the lower left to the upper right corner. This kind of association implies a tendency or a trend rather than a guarantee, suggesting an overall increase for both variables.
In technical terms, when talking about correlation coefficients, a positive association is reflected by a positive value. The stronger the association, the closer the coefficient is to 1. In this case, however, the number 0.067 suggests a very weak association even though it's positive.
Negative Association
In contrast to a positive association, a negative association describes a relationship between two variables where if one variable increases, the other tends to decrease. Imagine a seesaw where when one end goes up, the other goes down. In our NFL example, a negative association would imply that as teams win more games in the preseason, they tend to win fewer games during the regular season.
This kind of association can be visualized as a downward trend on a scatterplot. The points would typically move from the upper left to the lower right corner. It suggests an inverse relationship.
For correlation coefficients, a negative association is represented by a negative value. The closer the value is to -1, the stronger the negative association. A strong negative association would look like a clear downward slope on a graph of the data points.
Linear Relationship
A linear relationship in statistics involves a consistent change between two variables. In simpler terms, it means that if you create a graph of the two variables, the points could be connected with a straight line. This line doesn’t have to touch all the points but should reflect the overall trend of the data.
In our NFL example, the term "linear relationship" helps us assess if there’s a consistent trend between preseason and regular season wins. Given that the correlation coefficient is 0.067, the data show a very weak linear relationship. This means we can't strongly predict the outcome of regular season wins based on preseason performance. The points are likely scattered, not forming a clear straight line.
Linear relationships are commonly assessed using correlation. A perfect linear relationship is when the points fall exactly on a straight line, with correlation coefficients close to 1 or -1 depending on whether the association is positive or negative. Here, the weak coefficient tells us the data points don’t align well to suggest a straightforward pattern between the factors.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A researcher claims to have evidence of a strong positive correlation \((r=0.88)\) between a person's blood alcohol content \((\mathrm{BAC})\) and the type of \(\mathrm{alco}-\) holic drink consumed (beer, wine, or hard liquor). Explain, statistically, why this claim makes no sense.

Examine issues of location and spread for boxplots. In each case, draw sideby- side boxplots of the datasets on the same scale. There are many possible answers. One dataset has median 50, interquartile range 20 , and range 40 . A second dataset has median 50, interquartile range 50 , and range 100 . A third dataset has median 50 , interquartile range 50 , and range 60 .

Largest and Smallest Standard Deviation Using only the whole numbers 1 through 9 as possible data values, create a dataset with \(n=6\) and \(\bar{x}=5\) and with: (a) Standard deviation as small as possible. (b) Standard deviation as large as possible.

Levels of carbon dioxide \(\left(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\right)\) in the atmosphere are rising rapidly, far above any levels ever before recorded. Levels were around 278 parts per million in 1800 , before the Industrial Age, and had never, in the hundreds of thousands of years before that, gone above 300 ppm. Levels are now over 400 ppm. Table 2.31 shows the rapid rise of \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) concentrations over the 50 years from \(1960-2010\), also available in CarbonDioxide. \(^{73}\) We can use this information to predict \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) levels in different years. (a) What is the explanatory variable? What is the response variable? (b) Draw a scatterplot of the data. Does there appear to be a linear relationship in the data? (c) Use technology to find the correlation between year and \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) levels. Does the value of the correlation support your answer to part (b)? (d) Use technology to calculate the regression line to predict \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) from year. (e) Interpret the slope of the regression line, in terms of carbon dioxide concentrations. (f) What is the intercept of the line? Does it make sense in context? Why or why not? (g) Use the regression line to predict the \(\mathrm{CO}_{2}\) level in \(2003 .\) In \(2020 .\) (h) Find the residual for 2010 . Table 2.31 Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere $$\begin{array}{lc}\hline \text { Year } & \mathrm{CO}_{2} \\ \hline 1960 & 316.91 \\ 1965 & 320.04 \\\1970 & 325.68 \\ 1975 & 331.08 \\\1980 & 338.68 \\\1985 & 345.87 \\\1990 & 354.16 \\ 1995 & 360.62 \\\2000 & 369.40 \\ 2005 & 379.76 \\\2010 & 389.78 \\ \hline\end{array}$$

Indicate whether the five number summary corresponds most likely to a distribution that is skewed to the left, skewed to the right, or symmetric. (15,25,30,35,45)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.