Answer to the question no: 1

Net sales of different years (1997-2010 in $ million)

Year

Code

1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

Net Sales ($)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1.The least square equation:

Y= bx+a
From scatter diagram Here, b=27093
a=5366
Y= 27093x + 5366
Estimated sale for 2010:
For 2010, X=14
Y= (27093*14) + 5366

50,600
67,300
80,800
98,100
124,400
156,700
201,400
227,300
256,300
280,900

=384668 $ million

2.Plot:
Net Sales ($)
300,000

y = 27093x + 5366.7

250,000
200,000
Net Sales ($)

150,000

Linear (Net Sales ($))

100,000
50,000
0
0

10

15

Fig: Sales are increasing year after year. There is an upward trend of sales. X represents year in
X-axis and sales amounts are in Y-axis. There is a straight line represents trend line.

Answer to the question no: 2

Amount of Carbon Block imported in different years (1990-2006)

Year

Code

Imports of Carbon Block

(thousands of tons)

Log Y

1990

2.093422

124

1991
1992
1993

2.243038

2.485721

2.719331

175
306
524

1994

2.853698

1995

3.022016

1996
1997
1998

3.214314

3.391464

3.526081

1999
2000

10

3.62128

11

3.731428

2001
2002

12

3.904553

4181
5388
8027

13

4.024773

10587

2003

14

4.131522

13537

714
1052
1638
2463
3358

1.Logarithmic Trend:
Logarithmic trend

y = 0.1571x + 2.0334

4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5

log Y

Linear (log Y)

1.5
1
0.5
0
0

10

12

14

16

Fig: Number of imported books are increasing at a increasing rate. This is an upward logarithmic trend.
X-axis represents years and Y-axis represents the value of logarithm. The straight line connecting points
is logarithm trend line.

2.Annual rate of increase:

we have to find out anual rate of increase by using geomatric mean (G.M)
Log b=0.157
b= Antilog (0.157)
=1.435489433
G.M = 1.435489433-1
= 0.435489
So the annual rate of increase is 44%

3. Estimated import for 2006:

We know,
For 2006, X=17
Log Y = log b * x + Log a
Log Y = 0.157*17+ 2.033
Log Y= 4.702
Y= antilog (4.702)
Y= 50350.06
So the estimated import of 2006 is 50350.06 thousands of tons.

Answer to the question no: 3

Year

Production
Quarter

1998 Winter

90

Spring

85

4 Quarter
total

4 Quarter
Average

333

Summer

1999 Winter

362

90.5

367

91.75

115
89

Summer

61

375
425

Fall
2000 Winter

Spring

Fall
2001 Winter

446

111.5

483

120.75

110

657

164.25

689

172.25

701

175.25

248
201

Summer

110

727

Fall
2002 Winter

91.125

1.262002743

92.75

0.959568733

100

0.61

108.875

1.010332951

116.125

1.42088267

138

0.797101449

159.75

0.613458529

168.25

1.473997028

173.75

1.156834532

178.5

0.795518207

188

0.585106383

197.125

1.389980977

201.875

1.243343653

181.75

777

194.25

800

200

274
251

1.133333333

155.25

98

142

90

106.25

165

Spring

0.648335745

93.75

110

621

Summer

86.375
89.5

102

Spring

Specific
Seasonal

83.25

56
358

Fall

Centered moving average

815

Spring

165

Summer

125

Fall

305

846
836

2003 Winter

158

Summer

132

Fall

299

207.25

836

209

185

Summer

142

854

213.5

881

220.25

891

222.75

925

Fall

282

Spring

175

942

235.5

932

233

Summer

157

947
964

Fall

290

Spring

201

243

998

249.5

1078

Summer

187

Fall

400

1.465465465

208.125

1.157957958

208.25

0.758703481

210.5

0.627078385

216.875

1.378674352

221.5

1.196388262

227

0.814977974

233.375

0.608462775

234.25

1.421558164

234.875

1.200638638

238.875

0.732600733

242

0.648760331

246.25

1.421319797

253.25

1.145113524

263.25

0.763532764

241

972

1028

208.125

236.75

350

2006 Winter

0.594530321

231.25

333

2005 Winter

210.25

207.5

265

Spring

0.794701987

209

829

830

207.625
211.5

241

Spring

2004 Winter

203.75

257
269.5

1. Develop a seasonal index for each quarter and

interpret.
Quarter
year

winter

spring

1998

summer

fall

0.648335745

1.133333333

1999

1.262002743

0.959568733

0.61

1.010332951

2000

1.42088267

0.797101449

0.613458529

1.473997028

2001

1.156834532

0.795518207

0.585106383

1.389980977

2002

1.243343653

0.794701987

0.594530321

1.465465465

2003

1.157957958

0.758703481

0.627078385

1.378674352

2004

1.196388262

0.814977974

0.608462775

1.421558164

2005

1.200638638

0.732600733

0.648760331

1.421319797

2006

1.145113524

0.763532764

Total

9.78316198

6.416705328

4.935732468

10.69466207

Average

1.222895248

0.802088166

0.616966559

1.336832758

Adjusted

1.23213627

0.808149286

0.621628774

1.346934769

123.213627

80.81492856

62.16287743

134.6934769

Seasonal Index
(%)

Correlation factor = (4/3.97) = 1.007557

Interpretation:
Annual average sales=100%
Interpretation for winter: 123.21% (positive seasonal effect)
The production of pine lumber during winter quarter was 123.21% higher than the winter quarter
annual average sales and it is 23.21%.

Interpretation for spring: 80.81% (negative seasonal effect)

The production of pine lumber during Spring quarter was 80.81% lower than the spring quarter
annual average sales and it is 19.19%
Interpretation for summer: 62.16% (negative seasonal effect)
The production of pine lumber during Summer quarter was 62.16% lower than the summer
quarter annual average sales and it is 37.84%
Interpretation for fall: 134.70% (positive seasonal effect)
The production of pine lumber during Fall quarter was 134.70% higher than the fall quarter
annual average sales and it is 34.70%

year
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Quarter
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring

Code
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Seasonal
Production index
90
1.23213627
85
0.808149286
56
0.621628774
102
1.346934769
115
1.23213627
89
0.808149286
61
0.621628774
110
1.346934769
165
1.23213627
110
0.808149286
98
0.621628774
248
1.346934769
201
1.23213627
142
0.808149286
110
0.621628774
274
1.346934769
251
1.23213627
165
0.808149286
125
0.621628774
305
1.346934769
241
1.23213627
158
0.808149286

Deseasonalization
73.04386879
105.1785871
90.08591995
75.72749797
93.33383234
110.1281676
98.12930566
81.66690958
133.9137594
136.1134656
157.6503599
184.1217598
163.131307
175.7101102
176.9544856
203.4248475
203.7112341
204.1701984
201.0846427
226.4400675
195.5952486
195.5084324

Summer
Fall
2004 Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
2005 Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
2006 Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall

132
299
265
185
142
333
282
175
157
350
290
201
187
400

23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

0.621628774
1.346934769
1.23213627
0.808149286
0.621628774
1.346934769
1.23213627
0.808149286
0.621628774
1.346934769
1.23213627
0.808149286
0.621628774
1.346934769

212.3453827
221.9855088
215.0736136
228.9181013
228.4321541
247.2280081
228.8707889
216.5441499
252.5623113
259.8492577
235.3635772
248.7164235
300.8226255
296.9705803

Deseasonalization
350
y = 5.6678x + 80.659
300
250
200
deseasonalization
150

Linear (deseasonalization)

100
50
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Fig: deseasonalize data and trend line

1.Project the production for 2007:

2007 Winter

37

Spring
Summer
Fall

38
39
40

Y = 5.667x + 80.65
So the new production in,
Winter = 5.667*37 + 80.65= 290.329 millions
Spring = 5.667*38 + 80.65= 295.996 millions
Fall

=5.667*39+ 80.65=301.663 millions

Summer =5.667*40+ 80.65= 307.33 millions

Base year production:

Y = 5.667*0 + 80.65
Y = 80.65 millions

3. Plot the original data:

450
400
350

Production

300

y = 5.7896x + 78.976
deseasonalization

250

y = 5.6678x + 80.659
Linear (Production)

200
150

Linear
(deseasonalization)

100
50
0
0

10

20

30

40

700

production
and deseasonalized data

600
500
y = 5.7896x + 327.98
Production

400
300

deseasonalization
y = 5.8723x + 328.97

200
Linear (Production)

100
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Linear (deseasonalization)

year

fig: comparison between actual production data and deseasonalize data

Interpretation:
The data is Deseasonalize by dividing the observed value by its seasonal index. This
smoothes the data by removing seasonal variation. Diamond shapes are representing
production and square shapes are representing Deseasonalize data. Years are in X-axis and
production and Deseasonalize data are in Y-axis. From the graph we can notice that
production data are more fluctuate then d Deseasonalize data from trend line because
production data are not seasonally adjusted. After removing seasonal effect we find
seasonally adjusted sales. From the graph we also find the trend line of sales. That is much
easier for us to study on the trend and Deseasonalize data allow us to see better the
underlying pattern in the data. Seasonal adjustment may be a useful element in the
production of short term forecasts of future values of a time series. From the graph we can
measures of the extent of seasonality in the form of seasonal indexes.