/*! 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 1 More Education Improves Driving?... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

More Education Improves Driving? Although traffic fatalities have been decreasing for years, this decrease has not been experienced equally in all segments of the population. In fact, although the overall rate of traffic fatalities has been decreasing, the rate has declined the most for those with more education and has actually gone up for those without high school degrees. A recent study shows that among those over 25, as education level increased from less than high school, to high school grad, to some college, to college grad, the rate of motor vehicle crash deaths decreased. \(\underline{2}\) a. What are the explanatory and response variables? b. Those with less education tend to drive cars that are older, have poorer crash test ratings, and have fewer safety features such as side airbags. Are the variables age of car, crash test rating, and presence of safety features explanatory variables, response variables, or lurking variables? Explain your reason. c. Is the association between traffic fatalities and education level good reason to think that a higher level of education actually causes an individual to be a safer driver? Explain why or why not.

Short Answer

Expert verified
a. Explanatory: education level; Response: crash death rate. b. Lurking variables. c. No, correlation does not imply causation.

Step by step solution

01

Identify explanatory and response variables

The explanatory variable refers to the independent variable that is presumed to cause changes in the response variable. In this context, the explanatory variable is the education level: less than high school, high school grad, some college, and college grad. The response variable is the rate of motor vehicle crash deaths, as it is hypothesized to be influenced by education level.
02

Analyze variables for part b

A lurking variable is a variable that is not explicitly considered in a study but can affect the relationship between the explanatory and response variables. Here, the age of the car, crash test rating, and presence of safety features are lurking variables because they can influence the rate of motor vehicle crash deaths, but they are not directly being studied as explanatory or response variables.
03

Evaluate the causation potential in part c

The association between traffic fatalities and education level may suggest a correlation, but it does not necessarily imply causation. Education may be related to safer driving indirectly through different factors such as access to better quality vehicles and road safety education. Hence, higher levels of education do not directly cause an individual to be a safer driver, as other lurking variables could be involved.

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.

Explanatory Variables
An explanatory variable is like a cause. It is sometimes called an independent variable because it can stand on its own and influence other factors. For example, in the study of traffic fatalities, education level acts as the explanatory variable. This ranges from less than high school education to college graduation. Researchers are interested in how different levels of education might influence other outcomes. In this case, they're looking at how education affects motor vehicle crash deaths. The idea is that more education might lead to different choices or opportunities, affecting driving safety.
  • An explanatory variable does not get influenced by the factor you are studying.
  • Instead, it helps to explain or predict the trend or change you are observing.
  • It usually comes first in the cause-effect relationship.
Response Variables
The response variable can be seen as the effect or the outcome. It's what researchers or studies are trying to measure or understand. When you think of an experiment or study, the response variable is the result that’s hoped to be affected by the explanatory variable.
  • In our traffic fatalities study, the response variable is the rate of motor vehicle crash deaths.
  • This is what changes depending on the level of education someone has.
  • The response variable "responds" to changes or differences in the explanatory variable.
It’s crucial for students to realize that although the response variable changes when the explanatory variable changes, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the change is a direct result of the explanatory variable. Sometimes, other factors could be in play.
Lurking Variables
Lurking variables are like hidden actors. These variables aren’t the main focus of the study but can impact the outcomes or the perceived relationship between the explanatory and response variables. In our study about education and traffic fatalities, lurking variables include things like the age of the car, crash test ratings, and safety features like airbags. These factors can heavily influence the rate of fatalities.
  • Just because they aren’t the main study focus doesn’t mean they aren’t important.
  • Lurking variables can make it appear that there is or isn't a relationship when, in fact, there may be other explanations.
  • Ignoring lurking variables can lead to misleading conclusions.
Addressing or accounting for these variables is critical in ensuring that a study's outcomes are valid and reliable.
Correlation vs Causation
Understanding the difference between correlation and causation is crucial in statistics and research. Correlation refers to a relationship or pattern between two variables, where they change together. However, this does not imply that one causes the other to happen. Causation means that one variable directly affects another.
  • In the case of education and traffic fatalities, higher education levels correlate with fewer fatalities.
  • This does not mean education directly causes safer driving.
  • Other factors, like access to safer cars and more road safety knowledge, might contribute.
It's important for students to question whether a relationship is merely coincidental or if one variable truly affects the other. Failing to distinguish between correlation and causation can lead to mistaken assumptions in both academic and everyday contexts.

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

Athletes Take 0xygen. We often see players on the sidelines of a football game inhaling oxygen. Their coaches think this will speed their recovery. We might measure recovery from intense exertion as follows: Have a football player run 100 yards three times in quick succession. Then allow three minutes to rest before running 100 yards again. Time the final run. Describe the design of two experiments to investigate the effect of inhaling oxygen during the rest period. One of the experiments is to be a completely randomized design and the other a matched pairs design in which each athlete serves as their own control. Suppose you have 20 football players available as subjects. For both experiments, carry out the randomization of the 20 football players to treatments as required by the design.

Comparing Breathing Frequencies in Swimming. Researchers from the United Kingdom studied the effect of two breathing frequencies on both performance times and several physiological parameters in front crawl swimming. - \(^{-1}\) The breathing frequencies were one breath every second stroke (B2) and one breath every fourth stroke (B4). Subjects were 10 male collegiate swimmers. Each subject swam 200 meters, once with breathing frequency B2 and once on a different day with breathing frequency B4. a. Describe the design of this matched pairs experiment, including the randomization required by this design. Explain how you might carry out the randomization. b. Could this experiment be conducted using a completely randomized design? How would the design differ from the matched pairs experiment? c. Suppose we allow each swimmer to choose a breathing frequency and then swim 200 meters using the selected frequency. Are there any problems with then comparing the performance of the two breathing frequencies?

Observation Versus Experiment. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that patients who were divorced, separated, or widowed had approximately a \(40 \%\) greater chance of dying or developing a new functional disability in the first two years following cardiac surgery than their married peers. The data included 1576 subjects who underwent cardiac surgery, of whom \(65 \%\) were married; \(33 \%\) were divorced, separated, or widowed; and \(2 \%\) had never been married. The findings were reported to be statistically significant.26 a. Without reading any further details of this study, how do you know that this was an observational study? b. Suggest some variables that might differ between the subjects in the study who were married versus those who were divorced, separated, or widowed. Are any of these possible confounding variables? Explain. c. Summarize briefly the limitations of this study. Despite these limitations, explain why this study still furnishes useful information in formulating a recovery plan for those undergoing cardiac surgery.

The Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation asked whether a community-wide advertising campaign would reduce smoking. The researchers located 11 pairs of communities, with each pair similar in location, size, economic status, and so on. One community in each pair was chosen at random to participate in the advertising campaign and the other was not. This is a. an observational study. b. a matched pairs experiment. c. a completely randomized experiment.

.Treating Sinus Infections. Sinus infections are common, and doctors commonly treat them with antibiotics. Another treatment is to spray a steroid solution into the nose. A well-designed clinical trial found that these treatments, alone or in combination, do not reduce the severity or the length of sinus infections. \(\frac{34}{4}\) The clinical trial was a completely randomized experiment that assigned 240 patients at random among four treatments, as follows: a. The report of this study in the Journal of the American Medical Association describes it as a "double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled factorial trial." "Factorial" means that the treatments are formed from more than one factor. What are the factors? What do "double-blind" and "placebo-controlled" mean? b. If the random assignment of patients to treatments did a good job of eliminating bias, possible lurking variables such as smoking history, asthma, and hay fever should be similar in all four groups. After recording and comparing many such variables, the investigators said that "all showed no significant difference between groups." Explain to someone who knows no statistics what "no significant difference" means. Does it mean that the presence of all these variables was exactly the same in all four treatment groups?

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.