Solutions To End-of-Section and Chapter Review Problems 137

Solutions to End-of-Section and Chapter Review Problems 137
CHAPTER 3
3.1 (a) Excel output:
X
Mean 6.5
Median 6.5
Mode N/A
Standard Deviation 2.428992
Sample Variance 5.9
Range 7
Minimum 3
Maximum 10
Sum 39
Count 6
First Quartile 5
Third Quartile 8
Interquartile Range 3
Coefficient of Variation 37.3691%
Mean = 6.5 Median = 6.5 Mode = None.
(b) Range = 7 Variance = 5.9
Standard deviation = 2.42899
Coefficient of variation = (2.428992/6.5)*100% = 37.3691
(c)
X Z
8 0.61754
5 –.61754
10 1.440927
7 0.205847
3 –1.44093
6 –0.20585
There are no outliers since there is no Z score greater than 3 or less than –3.
(d) Mean = Median so the distribution is symmetrical.

X
Mean 7
Median 6
Mode NA
Sample Variance 12.66667
Range 10
Minimum 3
Maximum 13
Sum 49
Count 7
First Quartile 4
Third Quartile 10
Mean = 7 Median = 6 Mode = None
© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

138 Chapter 3: Numerical Descriptive Measures
(b) Range = 10 Variance = 12.66667

Coefficient of variation = (3.559026/7)*100% = 50.84323%
(c)
X Z
8 0.280976
3 –1.1239
10 0.842927
6 –0.28098
4 –0.84293
13 1.685855
5 –0.56195
(d) Mean > Median so the distribution is skewed right.

X
Mean 6.625
Median 6.5
Mode NA
Kurtosis 13
Minimum 1
Maximum 14
Sum 53
Count 8
First Quartile 3
Third Quartile 10
Mean = 6.625 Median = 6.5 Mode = None
(b) Range = 13 Variance = 11.49451 Standard deviation = 4.138236
Coefficient of variation = (4.138236/6.625)*100% = 62.46394%
(c)
X Z
14 0.641611
6 –0.05437
3 –0.31537
10 0.293618
1 –0.48936
8 0.119622
4 –0.22837
7 0.032624
(d) Mean > Median then the distribution is skewed right.

3.4 (a)
X
Mean 2
Median 2.5
Mode NA
Sample Variance 30
Range 13
Minimum –5
Maximum 8
Sum 8
Count 4
First Quartile –5
Third Quartile 8
Coefficient of Variation 273.8612788
Mean = 2 Median = 2.5 Mode = None
(b) Range = 2.5 Variance = 30
Coefficient of variation = (5.477225575/2)*100% = 273.86%
(c)
X Z
–5 –1.278
8 1.0954
4 0.3651
1 –0.183
(d) Mean < Median then the distribution is skewed left.
1/2
3.5 RG = ⎡⎣(1 + 0.12 )(1 + 0.28 )⎤⎦ − 1 = 19.73%
,
3.6 𝑅" = 1 + 0.22 1 − 0.28 - − 1 = −6.28%
3.7 Half of the Saveur readers have an income of no more than $163,108 while half of the
Saveur.com readers have an income of no more than $84,548.
3.8 (a) Measure Type 1 Type 2

Mean 12.17 12.83
Median 12 13
Standard Deviation 1.169 1.169
Range 3 3
(b) In comparison both sets have the same standard deviation but the Type 1 average is
closer to the expected value of 12 mm when compared with Type 2. If consistency is
the measure, then both types have equal values for the standard deviation and there
would be no difference in the brake pads. The range for type 1 and type 2 show no
difference in value.
(c) If the last value of Type 2 is changed to 24 mm, the mean for Type 2 becomes 14.5 mm,
which is larger than the diameter of Type 1 (12.17 mm). The standard deviation for

Type 2 gets affected (4.764) in comparison with Type 1 (1.169) and is therefore not
acceptable when compared with Type 1.
3.9 (a) Mean = 13.6 Median = 14 Mode = 14

(b) Variance = 3.257143
Standard Deviation = 1.804756
Range = 6
Coefficient of Variation = 13.27026
Score Z-Score
14 0.122807
15 0.429825
12 –0.49123
11 –0.79825
16 0.736842
14 0.122807
15 0.429825
13 –0.18421
12 –0.49123
11 –0.79825
13 –0.18421
17 1.04386
12 –0.49123
15 0.429825
14 0.122807
(c) Mean is slightly smaller than the median and is also slightly smaller than the mode
which indicates that the data is skewed left.
(d) Mean = 16.6
Median = 17
Mode = 17
Variance = 3.257143
Range = 6
Coefficient of Variation 10.87202
Score Z-Score
17 0.122807
18 0.429825
15 –0.49123
14 –0.79825
19 0.736842
17 0.122807
18 0.429825
16 –0.18421
15 –0.49123
14 –0.79825
16 –0.18421
20 1.04386
15 –0.49123
18 0.429825
17 0.122807

In comparison with the original data there is an indication that the mean, median, mode
all have increased by a value of 3 as well. The values for the standard deviation, the
variance, and range did not change. There was no notable change as expected for the
corresponding values of the z score. The data show slight skewedness to the left with no
change noted.
3.10 (a) Mean = 6.647

Median = 6.42
(b) Variance = 6.734593
Range = 10.2
(c) The mean is only slightly smaller than the median which indicates that the data is
skewed left.
(d) The mean of the data and median are $6.73 and $6.88 respectively. The average data
dispersion around the mean is $2.595. The data shows a range of $10.2.
3.11 (a), (b)

MPG
Mean 27.12
Standard Error 1.005518
Median 26
Mode 26
Kurtosis 0.749384
Skewness 1.182692
Range 18
Minimum 21
Maximum 39
Sum 678
Count 25
First Quartile 24
Third Quartile 29.5
CV 18.54%

3.11 (b)
cont.
MPG Z Score MPG Z Score
38 2.164058 23 -0.81948
26 -0.22277 25 -0.42167
30 0.572839 26 -0.22277
26 -0.22277 31 0.771741
25 -0.42167 26 -0.22277
27 -0.02387 37 1.965156
22 -1.01838 22 -1.01838
27 -0.02387 29 0.373937
39 2.362961 25 -0.42167
24 -0.62058 33 1.169546
24 -0.62058 21 -1.21728
26 -0.22277 21 -1.21728
25 -0.42167
(c) The mean is only slightly larger than the median, so the data are only slightly right-
skewed.
(d) The distribution of MPG of the sedans is slightly right-skewed while that of the SUVs
is symmetrical. The mean MPG of sedans is 4.59 higher than that of SUVs. The average
scatter of the MPG of sedans is almost 3 times that of SUVs. The range of sedans is
slightly more than 2.5 times that of SUVs.
3.12 (a) Mean = 36

Median = 35
Mode = 35
(b) Variance = 9.5
Range = 12
Score Z-Score
35 –0.32444
30 –1.94666
37 0.324443
35 –0.32444
34 –0.64889
35 –0.32444
35 –0.32444
42 1.946657
40 1.297771
37 0.324443
42 1.946657
38 0.648886
35 –0.32444
34 –0.64889
35 –0.32444
34 –0.64889
34 –0.64889
(c) Mean is larger than both median and mode, hence the data is skewed right.

(d) Mean = 39
Median = 38
Mode = 38
Variance = 9.5
Range = 12
Score Z-Score
38 0.648886
33 –0.97333
40 1.297771
38 0.648886
37 0.324443
38 0.648886
38 0.648886
45 2.919986
43 2.2711
40 1.297771
45 2.919986
41 1.622214
38 0.648886
37 0.324443
38 0.648886
37 0.324443
37 0.324443
The mean is larger than the median and the mode; hence data is slightly skewed right.
3.13 (a), (b)
Number of Partners
Mean 17.71429
Median 16
Mode 12
Kurtosis -0.53274
Skewness 0.621375
Range 23
Minimum 9
Maximum 32
Sum 620
Count 35
First Quartile 12
Third Quartile 22
CV 37.08%
3.13 (a), (b)
cont.

Firm Number of Partners Z Score

Prager Metis International 25 1.1091
Wolf & Co. 18 0.0435
Brown Smith Wallace 23 0.8046
Padgett, Stratemann & Co. 16 -0.2610
Clark Nuber 16 -0.2610
Skoda Minotti 14 -0.5654
Yeo & Yeo 22 0.6524
Kreischer Miller 17 -0.1087
Gursey|Schneider 9 -1.3266
Brady, Martz & Associates 32 2.1747
Bennett Thrasher 22 0.6524
Cotton & Co. 12 -0.8699
Anders 18 0.0435
Frost 9 -1.3266
Brown , Edwards & Co. 25 1.1091
GHP Horwath 9 -1.3266
Anderson ZurMuehlen & Co. 28 1.5658
RBZ 14 -0.5654
Jackson Thornton & Co. 22 0.6524
Windes & McClaughry 18 0.0435
Yount, Hyde & Barbour 22 0.6524
Briggs & Veselka Co. 16 -0.2610
Green Hasson Janks 12 -0.8699
Hutchinson and Bloodgood 31 2.0225
LaPorte 17 -0.1087
Johnson Lambert 12 -0.8699
Wolfe & Co. 14 -0.5654
Mizer Houser & Co. 16 -0.2610
Bouley, Heutmaker, Zibell & Co. 30 1.8703
Gelman, Rosenberg & Freedman 12 -0.8699
Keiter 12 -0.8699
Gainer Donnelly 10 -1.1744
Lutz & Co. 24 0.9569
PKF Texas 12 -0.8699
Ellin & Tucker Chartered 11 -1.0221
There is no outlier since none of the Z scores is greater than 3 or smaller than -3.
(c) The data is quite symmetrical since the mean and the median are about the same.
(d) The mean number of partners is 17.7143 while the median number of partners is 16.
The average scatter of the number of partners around the mean is 6.5690. The
difference between the highest and the lowest number of partners is 23.

3.14 (a) Mean = 33.65

Median = 32.54
Mode = NA
(b) Variance = 160.375
Range = 48.09
X Z Score
42.56 0.703573
32.09 –0.12318
5.37 –2.23311
19.51 –1.11656
32.54 –0.08765
42.69 0.713838
51.63 1.41978
30.14 –0.27717
39.47 0.459573
30.52 –0.24716
38.16 0.35613
19.35 –1.12919
27.14 –0.51406
53.46 1.564285
40.12 0.5109
(c) Mean is larger than the median; hence data is skewed right.
(d) The mean cost is $33.65 and the median cost is $32.54. The difference between the
extreme values is $48.
3.15 (a)
One-Year Five-Year
Mean 0.645652 1.276087
Standard Error 0.064859 0.085282
Median 0.8 1.41
Mode 0.9 1.2
Sample Variance 0.096753 0.167279
Kurtosis -1.34232 0.635713
Skewness -0.51054 -1.11364
Range 0.95 1.5
Minimum 0.1 0.35
Maximum 1.05 1.85
Sum 14.85 29.35
Count 23 23
First Quartile 0.3 1.05
Third Quartile 0.9 1.54
CV 48.18% 32.05%
(b) The one-year CDs have about the same standard deviation but a roughly 1/3 lower
range in the yields offered than the five-year CD. Hence, you might conclude that the
five-year CDs have a larger amount of variation in the yields offered as compared to the

one-year CDs. But the one-year CDs have a higher variation relative to the average in
the yields offered than the five-year CDs.
3.16 (a) Mean = 156

Median = 157.5
Mode = 156
(b) Variance = 256.8571
(c) Mean is smaller than the median which indicates that the data is skewed left and the
majority of the people attending the function spent lesser money than the median.
(d) Mean = 168.5
Median = 157.5
Mode = 156
Variance = 1849.714
Standard Deviations = 43.0083
The new data summary shows that the data became right skewed due to the change in
data, also the amount of data dispersion increased.
3.17 (a) Mean = 4.346

Median = 4.15
(b) Variance = 0.582726
Standard Deviations = 0.763365
Range = 8.55
CV = 17.56477
X Z-Score
3.56 –1.34873
5.2 1.465409
4.03 –0.54224
5.1 1.293815
3.4 –1.62327
3.2 –1.96646
4.01 –0.57655
5.35 1.722799
4.52 0.298573
4.68 0.573122
5.23 1.516887
4.15 –0.33632
3.45 –1.53748
4 –0.59371
5.31 1.654162
Since none of the z values are larger than 3 or smaller than –3 then there are no outliers
for the data.
(c) Mean is larger than median then data is skewed right.
(d) Both the mean and median are greater than four and the mean is greater than the median
indicating the data is skewed to the right. The latter indicate that there are values in the
wait time that are rather high. 47% of the data values had a more than 4 minutes of
waiting time. According to the data analysis it shows that the written statement does not
reflect accurately on the customer waiting time and should be revised.

3.18 Excel output:

Waiting Time
Mean 7.114667
Median 6.68
Mode #N/A
Range 6.67
Minimum 3.82
Maximum 10.49
Sum 106.72
Count 15
First Quartile 5.64
Third Quartile 8.73
Interquartile Range 3.09
(a) Mean = 7.114 Median = 6.68
(b) Variance = 4.336 Standard deviation = 2.082 Range = 6.67
Coefficient of variation = 29.27%
Waiting Time Z Score
9.66 1.222431
5.90 -0.58336
8.02 0.434799
5.79 -0.63619
8.73 0.775786
3.82 -1.58231
8.01 0.429996
8.35 0.593286
10.49 1.62105
6.68 -0.20875
5.64 -0.70823
4.08 -1.45744
6.17 -0.45369
9.91 1.342497
5.47 -0.78987
(b) There is no outlier since none of the observations are greater than 3 standard
deviations away from the mean.
(c) Because the mean is greater than the median, the distribution is right-skewed.
(d) The mean and median are both greater than 5 minutes. The distribution is right-skewed,
meaning that there are some unusually high values. Further, 13 of the 15 bank
customers sampled (or 86.7%) had waiting times greater than 5 minutes. So the
customer is likely to experience a waiting time in excess of 5 minutes. The manager
overstated the bank’s service record in responding that the customer would “almost
certainly” not wait longer than 5 minutes for service.
1/2
3.19 (a) RG = ⎡⎣(1 + 0.014 )(1 + 0.172 )⎤⎦ − 1 = 9.01%

(b) If you purchased $1,000 of GE stock at the start of 2011, its value at the end of 2012
2
was $ 1000 (1 + 0.1559 ) = $1188.41.
(c) The result for Taser was better than the result for GE, which was worth $1,336.08.
1/2
3.20 (a) RG = ⎡⎣(1 + 0.024 )(1 + 0.746 )⎤⎦ − 1 = 33.71%%
(b) If you purchased $1,000 of TASER stock at the start of 2011, its value at the end of
2
2012 was $1000 (1 + 0.3371) = $ 1,787.904.
(c) The result for Taser was better than the result for GE, which was worth $1188.41.
3.21 (a)
Year DJIA S&P 500 Nasdaq
2012 7.26 13.41 15.91
2011 5.5 0 -1.8
2010 11 12.8 16.9
2009 18.8 23.5 43.9
Geometric mean 10.52% 12.11% 17.63%
(b) The rate of return of Nasdaq 500 is the best at 17.63% followed by S&P 500 at 12.11%
and DJIA at 10.52%.
(c) Silver had a much higher return than the DJIA, the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ; gold’s
return was worse than the NASDAQ but better than the S&P 500 and DJIA; platinum’s
return was better than S&P 500 and DJIA but worse than NASDAQ.
3.22 (a)
Year Platinum Gold Silver
2012 8.7 0.1 7.1
2011 -21.1 10.2 -9.8
2010 21.5 29.8 83.7
2009 55.9 23.9 49.3
Geometric mean 12.90% 15.41% 27.58%
(b) Silver had the highest return, followed by gold and then platinum.
(c) Silver had a much higher return than the DJIA, the S&P 500, and the NASDAQ; gold’s
return was worse than the NASDAQ but better than the S&P 500 and DJIA; platinum’s
return was better than S&P 500 and DJIA but worse than NASDAQ.

3.23 (a)
Average of 1YrReturn% Risk
Type Average High Low Grand Total
Growth 13.0524 17.7170 14.6717 14.2780
Large 16.5860 33.7200 14.9747 15.6771
Mid-Cap 12.7726 13.6354 13.2160
Small 12.1717 10.8586 15.3638 12.9771
Value 17.1012 15.4133 14.0751 14.6982
Large 14.9375 5.9800 13.6391 13.5898
Mid-Cap 19.9675 15.9400 16.7879
Small 16.7889 20.1300 13.1467 15.4840
Grand Total 13.8088 17.1854 14.4775 14.3963
(b)
StdDev of 1YrReturn% Risk
Type Average High Low Grand Total
Growth 6.0163 11.3821 3.3562 5.0041
Large 5.3697 0.2946 3.3913 4.7615
Mid-Cap 7.2161 3.0773 5.4705
Small 4.0632 3.3723 3.4576 4.0854
Value 4.4488 8.4131 4.1475 4.4651
Large 4.1739 #DIV/0! 3.9596 4.0592
Mid-Cap 3.0589 3.1527 3.4837
Small 4.7941 2.8426 5.8336 5.4861
Grand Total 5.9494 10.4872 3.6336 4.8551
(c) The mean one-year return of growth funds is higher than that of the value funds for the
large-cap and the various risk ratings while the mean one-year return of value funds is
higher than that of the growth funds for the mid-cap and small-cap and the various risk
ratings with the exception of the small-cap with low rating.
The standard deviation of the one-year return of growth funds is generally higher than
that of the value funds for the large and mid-cap and average risk rating while the
standard deviation of the one-year return of value funds is higher than that of the
growth funds for the three different market caps with low risk rating.

3.24 (a)
Average of 1YrReturn% Star Rating
Type Five Four One Three Two Grand Total
Growth 16.5544 15.2193 10.3575 13.9957 13.6058 14.2780
Large 18.0756 15.4971 12.3320 14.8743 17.1257 15.6771
Mid-Cap 15.5200 15.0400 10.0875 13.4140 8.7046 13.2160
Small 13.3300 15.0082 9.1014 12.7676 12.4722 12.9771
Value 17.2820 12.7295 13.4957 15.3603 15.4863 14.6982
Large 16.4150 11.7515 12.1120 14.5648 14.1633 13.5898
Mid-Cap 16.4400 16.1625 16.7267 17.4680 16.7879
Small 18.5700 12.5260 16.9550 16.0950 15.8860 15.4840
Grand Total 16.7126 14.6604 11.3126 14.4423 14.1821 14.3963
(b)
StdDev of 1YrReturn% Star Rating
Growth 4.0813 3.6946 5.0187 3.8308 7.6709 5.0041
Large 4.3119 4.1374 4.6690 2.7064 7.4925 4.7615
Mid-Cap 3.3099 3.1017 8.7458 4.8023 7.6199 5.4705
Small 4.4265 3.9244 2.2479 4.3906 2.9127 4.0854
Value 6.9822 4.5679 4.3343 4.1815 3.6530 4.4651
Large 1.1384 3.6990 4.3732 4.5739 2.5803 4.0592
Mid-Cap #DIV/0! 4.1910 3.1676 4.5127 3.4837
Small 13.7179 6.3546 1.6476 3.9994 4.1620 5.4861
Grand Total 4.6722 4.0202 4.9474 3.9820 6.7243 4.8551
(c) The mean one-year return of small-cap value funds is higher than that of the small-cap
growth funds across the different star ratings with the exception of those rated as four-
star. On the other hand, the mean one-year return of large-cap value funds is lower
than that of the growth funds across the different star ratings but the mid-cap value
funds are higher across the different star ratings.
The standard deviation of the one-year return of growth funds is generally higher than
that of the value funds across all the star ratings and market caps with the exception of
the large-cap and three-star, mid-cap and five-star, mid-cap and four-star, mid-cap and
one-star, small-cap and five-star, small-cap and four-star, and small-cap and two-star.

3.25 (a)
Market Cap Five Four One Three Two Grand Total
Large 17.7736 14.3905 12.2220 14.7622 16.2370 14.9950
Average 13.6000 18.6750 15.1833 15.6675 16.6100 16.1150
High 5.9800 33.7200 26.7850
Low 18.1910 14.1864 11.7817 14.6952 13.8917 14.5295
Mid-Cap 15.6350 15.1803 10.0875 14.4421 11.1389 13.9618
Average 18.0000 17.1671 11.1933 14.8262 10.3157 13.5105
Low 14.8467 14.6240 6.7700 14.1300 14.0200 14.3002
Small 15.9500 14.4441 10.8467 13.6357 13.6914 13.6735
Average 28.2700 14.3050 10.8967 12.5211 13.1910 13.2653
High 14.6100 10.8217 14.5900 22.1400 12.9189
Low 11.8433 14.4887 18.4125 12.5433 14.5656
Grand Total 16.7126 14.6604 11.3126 14.4423 14.1821 14.3963
(b)
Market Cap Five Four One Three Two Grand Total
Large 3.9313 4.3301 4.2664 3.4625 6.5160 4.6358
Average #DIV/0! 10.4440 5.2235 4.9464 4.4221 4.9577
High #DIV/0! 0.2946 13.8721
Low 3.8785 4.0082 2.9262 3.3827 2.4161 3.6313
Mid-Cap 3.0815 3.1971 8.7458 4.5770 7.8798 5.3072
Average 2.4466 2.7400 10.3633 5.7755 8.7829 7.2263
Low 3.0190 3.1388 #DIV/0! 3.4910 1.8296 3.2442
Small 8.8550 4.5342 4.0152 4.4595 3.6650 4.6175
Average #DIV/0! 5.4572 4.2430 3.8630 3.2572 4.6282
High #DIV/0! 4.3118 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 5.1239
Low 4.0531 4.4934 4.8060 0.8041 4.4716
Grand Total 4.6722 4.0202 4.9474 3.9820 6.7243 4.8551
(c) The mean one-year return of five-star funds is generally the highest, followed by the
four-star, three-star, two-star and one-star funds across the various market caps and risk
ratings with the exception of the small-cap funds rated at the various star ratings,
There is no obvious pattern in the standard deviation of the one-year return.

3.26 (a)
Growth 16.5544 15.2193 10.3575 13.9957 13.6058 14.2780
Average 16.5333 16.2233 11.6467 13.0514 10.8005 13.0524
High 14.6100 9.3620 14.5900 33.7200 17.7170
Low 16.5587 14.9785 9.8060 14.5700 13.6822 14.6717
Value 17.2820 12.7295 13.4957 15.3603 15.4863 14.6982
Average 28.2700 13.9800 16.4786 17.5267 17.1012
High 12.0500 22.1400 15.4133
Low 14.5350 12.7295 14.2150 15.0903 13.9117 14.0751
Grand Total 16.7126 14.6604 11.3126 14.4423 14.1821 14.3963
(b)
Growth 4.0813 3.6946 5.0187 3.8308 7.6709 5.0041
Average 3.0735 4.9524 7.6948 4.9654 6.9272 6.0163
High #DIV/0! 2.6945 #DIV/0! 0.2946 11.3821
Low 4.3448 3.3483 3.0114 2.8818 2.1220 3.3562
Value 6.9822 4.5679 4.3343 4.1815 3.6530 4.4651
Average #DIV/0! 4.0506 2.9673 3.8277 4.4488
High 8.5843 #DIV/0! 8.4131
Low 3.8335 4.5679 0.5445 4.4251 2.4852 4.1475
Grand Total 4.6722 4.0202 4.9474 3.9820 6.7243 4.8551
(c) In general, the mean one-year return of the five-star rated growth funds is highest,
followed by that of the four-star, three-star, two-star and one-star rated growth funds
across the various risk levels. However, similar pattern does not hold through among
the value funds.
There is no obvious pattern in the standard deviation of the one-year return.

3.27 (a) Q1 = 4, Q3 = 10, interquartile range = 6

(b) Min = 1, Max = 11, Q1 = 4, Q2 = 6, Q3 = 10
(c)
Data is skewed right.

(d) (a, b, c) all the values will be shifted by adding 2 such as Min = 3, Q1 = 6, Q2 =8,
Q3 = 12, Max = 13.
The boxplot will remain the same but will shift to the right by 2. The data will stay
skewed to the right.

(b) Min = 3, Q1 = 6, Q2 = 8, Q3 = 11, Max = 15
(c)
Data is slightly skewed to the right.

(d) Each of 1, Q2, Q3, Min, and Max will be subtracted by 2 as well. The boxplot will shift
2 to the left.

(b) Min = 2, Q1 = 5, Q2 = 7, Q3 = 12, Max = 13
(c)
Data shows slight skewedness to the right.

(d) Each of 1, Q2, Q3, Min, and Max will be subtracted by 2 as well. The boxplot will shift
2 to the left.

3.30 (a) Q1 = -6.5, Q3 = 8, interquartile range = 14.5

(b) Five-number summary: – 8 – 6.5 7 8 9
(c)
Box-and-whisker Plot
-10 -5 0 5 10
The distribution is left-skewed.

(d) This is consistent with the answer in 3.4 (d).
3.31 (a), (b)

Five-Number Summary
Minimum 9
First Quartile 12
Median 16
Third Quartile 22
Maximum 32
(c)
Boxplot
Number of
Partners
0 10 20 30
The number of partners is right-skewed.

3.32 (a), (b)

Five-Number Summary
Minimum 5.37
First Quartile 30.12
Median 38.16
Third Quartile 49.35
Maximum 53.45
(c)
Boxplot
Facebook
Penetration
0 10 20 30 40 50
The penetration value is left-skewed.
3.33 (a) Q1 = 235, Q3 = 278, IQR = 43

(b) Min = 141, Q1 = 235, Q2 = 261, Q3 = 278, Max = 450
(c)
Data indicates skewedness to the right.
3.34 (a) Q1 = 34.5, Q3 = 37.5, IQR = 3

(b) Min = 30, Q1 = 34.5, Q2 = 35, Q3 = 37.5, Max = 42
(c)
Data indicates skewedness to the right.

3.35 (a), (b)

Five-Number Summary
One-Year Five-Year
Minimum 0.1 0.35
Median 0.8 1.41
Third Quartile 0.9 1.54
Maximum 1.05 1.85
Interquartile Range 0.6 0.49
(c)
Boxplot
Five-Year
One-Year
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
(d) Both the one-year CDs’ and five-year CDs’ yields are left-skewed.
3.36 Excel output for Residential Area:

Waiting Time
Mean 7.114667
Median 6.68
Mode #N/A
Range 6.67
Minimum 3.82
Maximum 10.49
Sum 106.72
Count 15
First Quartile 5.64
Third Quartile 8.73
Excel output for Residential Area:

Five-number Summary
Minimum 3.82
First Quartile 5.64
Median 6.68
Third Quartile 8.73
Maximum 10.49

Excel output for Commercial District:

Waiting Time
Mean 4.286667
Median 4.5
Mode #N/A
Kurtosis 0.832925
Skewness -0.83295
Range 6.08
Minimum 0.38
Maximum 6.46
Sum 64.3
Count 15
First Quartile 3.2
Third Quartile 5.55
Five-number Summary
Minimum 0.38
First Quartile 3.2
Median 4.5
Third Quartile 5.55
Maximum 6.46
(a) Commercial district: Five-number summary: 0.38 3.2 4.5 5.55 6.46
Residential area: Five-number summary: 3.82 5.64 6.68 8.73 10.49
(b) Commercial district:
Waiting Time
0 2 4 6 8
The distribution is skewed to the left.

3.36
cont. Residential area:
Waiting Time
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
The distribution is skewed slightly to the right.

(c) The central tendency of the waiting times for the bank branch located in the commercial
district of a city is lower than that of the branch located in the residential area. There
are a few longer than normal waiting times for the branch located in the residential area
whereas there are a few exceptionally short waiting times for the branch located in the
commercial area.
12
∑ 1
xi
3.37 (a) Population Mean = µ = = 6.615385
N
12
∑ 1
( xi − µ )2
(b) Standard Deviation = σ= = 2.843034
N
3.38 (a) Population Mean = 6

(b) σ 2 = 2.8 σ = 1.67
50 N
2
∑ Xi 514 ∑( X i − µ)
204.92
3.39 (a) µ= i =1
= = 10.28 σ2 = i =1
= = 4.0984
N 50 N 50
(b)
σ
64%
= 2.0245
94% 100%
(c) These percentages are lower than the empirical rule would suggest.
3.40 (a) 68% (b) 95% (c) not calculable 75% 88.89%
(d) µ − 4σ to µ + 4σ or -2.8 to 19.2
3.41 (a) µ = 1.477 σ 2 = 0.9123
(b)
σ = 0.9551
On average, the cigarette tax is $1.48. The average distances between the cigarette tax
in each of the 50 states and the population mean cigarette tax is $ 0.96.


Kilowatt Hours
Mean 12999.22
Median 13255
Mode #N/A
Sample Variance 15258895
Kurtosis 0.232784
Skewness 0.468115
Range 18171
Minimum 6396
Maximum 24567
Sum 662960
Count 51
mean = 12999.2158, variance = 14959700.52, std. dev. = 3867.7772
(b) 64.71%, 98.04% and 100% of these states have average per capita energy consumption
within 1, 2 and 3 standard deviations of the mean, respectively.
(c) This is consistent with the 68%, 95% and 99.7% according to the empirical rule.
(d) Excel output:
Kilowatt Hours
Mean 12857.74
Median 12999
Mode #N/A
Sample Variance 14528684
Kurtosis 0.464522
Skewness 0.494714
Range 18171
Minimum 6396
Maximum 24567
Sum 642887
Count 50
(a) mean = 12857.7402, variance = 14238110.67, std. dev. = 3773.3421
(b) 66%, 98% and 100% of these states have average per capita energy
consumption within 1, 2 and 3 standard deviation of the mean, respectively.
(c) This is consistent with the 68%, 95% and 99.7% according to the empirical rule.
3.43 (a) µ = $ 142.9 billion σ = $ 86.8602 billion

(b) On average, the market capitalization for this population of 30 companies is
$142.9 billion. The average distances between the market capitalization and the
mean market capitalization for this population of 30 companies $86.8602 billion.
3.44 (a) cov(X,Y) = 64.11818

(b) S-X = 4.665151, S-Y = 13.75103

cov( X , Y )
r= = 0.999494
Sx * S y
(c) There is a strong positive linear relationship between the two data sets.
3.45 (a) The study suggests that time spent on Facebook and grade point average are negatively
correlated.
(b) There could be a cause-and-effect relationship between time spent on Facebook and
grade point average. The more time spent on Facebook, the less time a student would
have available for study and, hence, results in lower grade point average holding
constant all the other factors that could have affected grade point average.
3.46 (a) cov(X,Y) = 133.3333

(b) S X2 = 2200, SY2 = 11.4762
cov ( X , Y )
r= = 0.8391
S X SY
(c) The correlation coefficient is more valuable for expressing the relationship between
calories and sugar because it does not depend on the units used to measure calories and
sugar.
(d) There is a strong positive linear relationship between calories and sugar.
3.47 (a)
First Weekend US Gross Worldwide Gross
First Weekend 947.4799
US Gross 890.3014 1576.679
Worldwide Gross 4001.782 6045.573 24934.48
(b)
First Weekend US Gross Worldwide Gross
First Weekend 1
US Gross 0.728417 1
Worldwide Gross 0.823319 0.964197 1
(c) The correlation coefficient is more valuable for expressing the relationship because
it does not depend on the units used.
(d) There is a strong positive linear relationship between U.S. gross and worldwide gross,
first weekend gross and worldwide gross and first weekend gross and U.S. gross.
3.48 (a) cov(X,Y) = 1.43478 ×1013

(b) S X2 = 1.4339 ×1012 , SY2 = 2.3890 ×1014
cov ( X , Y )
r= = 0.7752
S X SY
(c) There is a positive linear relationship between the coaches’ pay and revenue.
3.49 (a) cov(X,Y) = 133302.7571

(b) S X2 = 194992743.3, SY2 = 183.7904762

cov ( X , Y )
r= = 0.7042
S X SY
(c) There is a strong positive linear relationship between the GDP and social media use.
3.50 We should look for ways to describe the typical value, the variation, and the distribution of the
data within a range.
3.51 Central tendency or location refers to the fact that most sets of data show a distinct tendency to
group or cluster about a certain central point.
3.52 The arithmetic mean is a simple average of all the values, but is subject to the effect of extreme
values. The median is the middle ranked value, but varies more from sample to sample than the
arithmetic mean, although it is less susceptible to extreme values. The mode is the most
common value, but is extremely variable from sample to sample.
3.53 The first quartile is the value below which ¼ of the total ranked observations will fall, the
median is the value that divides the total ranked observations into two equal halves and the third
quartile is the observation above which ¼ of the total ranked observations will fall.
3.54 Variation is the amount of dispersion, or “spread,” in the data.
3.55 The Z score measures how many standard deviations an observation in a data set is away from
the mean.
3.56 The range is a simple measure, but only measures the difference between the extremes. The
interquartile range measures the range of the center fifty percent of the data. The standard
deviation measures variation around the mean while the variance measures the squared variation
around the mean, and these are the only measures that take into account each observation. The
coefficient of variation measures the variation around the mean relative to the mean. The range,
standard deviation, variance and coefficient of variation are all sensitive to outliers while the
interquartile range is not.
3.57 The empirical rule relates the mean and standard deviation to the percentage of values that will
fall within a certain number of standard deviations of the mean.
3.58 The Chebyshev rule applies to any type of distribution while the empirical rule applies only to
data sets that are approximately bell-shaped. The empirical rule is more accurate than the
Chebyshev rule in approximating the concentration of data around the mean.
3.59 Shape is the manner in which the data are distributed. The shape of a data set can be
symmetrical or asymmetrical (skewed).
3.60 The arithmetic mean is appropriate if you want to obtain a typical value and serves as a
“balance point” in a set of data, similar to the fulcrum on a seesaw. The geometric mean is
appropriate when you want to measure the rate of change of a variable over time.
3.61 Skewness measures the extent to which the data values are not symmetrical around the mean.
Kurtosis measures the extent to which values that are very different from the mean affect the
shape of the distribution of a set of data.

3.62 The covariance measures the strength of the linear relationship between two numerical variables
while the coefficient of correlation measures the relative strength of the linear relationship. The
value of the covariance depends very much on the units used to measure the two numerical
variables while the value of the coefficient of correlation is totally free from the units used.
3.63 On average, the Master Black Belt has the highest average salary ($112,946), followed by the
managers ($91,878), the quality engineers ($79,575), and then the Green Belts ($74,173). The
middle rank salary for the Master Black Belt ($110,000) is also the highest, followed by the
managers ($89,000), the quality engineers ($78,000), and then the Green Belts ($70,500). The
overall spread between the highest and lowest salary for the managers ($694,000) is the highest,
followed by the quality engineers ($160,000), the Master Black Belt ($157,000), and then the
Green Belts ($99,000). However, the average spread of the salary around the mean of the
manager ($27,906) is the highest, followed by the Master Black Belt ($27,474), the Green Belts
($23,399) and then the Quality Engineer ($21,933). Relative dispersion (CV) for Green Belt is
highest at 31.55% and lowest for Master Black Belts at 24.32%.
3.64 Excel output:

Time
Mean 43.88889
Median 45
Mode 17
Range 76
Minimum 16
Maximum 92
First Quartile 18
Third Quartile 63
interquartile range 45
c.v 57.61%
(a) mean = 43.89 median = 45 1st quartile = 18 3rd quartile = 63
(b) range = 76 interquartile range = 45 variance = 639.2564
standard deviation = 25.28 coefficient of variation = 57.61%

(c)
Time
10 30 50 70 90
The distribution is skewed to the right because there are a few policies that require an
exceptionally long period to be approved even though the mean is smaller than the
median.
(d) The mean approval process takes 43.89 days with 50% of the policies being approved
in less than 45 days. 50% of the applications are approved between 18 and 63 days.
About 67% of the applications are approved between 18.6 to 69.2 days.
3.65 Excel output:

Days
Mean 43.04
Median 28.5
Mode 5
Range 164
Minimum 1
Maximum 165
First Quartile 14
Third Quartile 54
CV 97.41%
(a) Mean = 43.04 Median = 28.5 Q1 = 14 Q3 = 54
(b) Range = 164 Interquartile range = 40 Variance = 1,757.79
Standard deviation = 41.926 Coefficient of variation = 97.41%

(c) Box-and-whisker plot for Days to Resolve Complaints

Days
0 50 100 150
The distribution is right-skewed.

(d) Half of all customer complaints that year were resolved in less than a month (median =
28.5 days), 75% of them within 54 days. There were five complaints that were
particularly difficult to settle which brought the overall mean up to 43 days. No
complaint took longer than 165 days to resolve.
3.66 Excel output:

Width
Mean 8.420898
Median 8.42
Mode 8.42
Kurtosis 0.035814
Skewness -0.48568
Range 0.186
Minimum 8.312
Maximum 8.498
Sum 412.624
Count 49
First Quartile 8.404
Third Quartile 8.459
CV 0.55%
(a) mean = 8.421, median = 8.42, range = 0.186 and standard deviation = 0.0461. On
average, the width is 8.421 inches. The width of the middle ranked observation is 8.42.
The difference between the largest and smallest width is 0.186 and majority of the
widths fall between 0.0461 inches around the mean of 8.421 inches.
(b) Minimum = 8.312, 1st quartile = 8.404, median = 8.42, 3rd quartile = 8.459 and
maximum = 8.498

Width
8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6
(c) Even though the median is equal to the mean, the distribution is not symmetrical but
skewed to the left.
(d) All the troughs fall within the limit of 8.31 and 8.61 inches.
3.67 Excel output:

Force
Mean 1723.4
Median 1735
Mode 1662
Kurtosis -0.24355
Skewness -0.36714
Range 348
Minimum 1522
Maximum 1870
Sum 51702
Count 30
First Quartile 1662
Third Quartile 1784
CV 5.1962%
(a) mean = 1723.4 median = 1735 range = 348 standard deviation = 89.55
(b) The mean force required to break the insulators in the sample is 1723.4 pounds. The
middle ranked breaking force is 1735 pounds. The differences between the smallest
and largest breaking force is 348 pounds. Roughly about 68% of the insulators will
have breaking force that falls within 89.55 pounds of 1723.4 pounds.
(c) Five-number summary: 1522 1662 1735 1784 1870.

Force
1500 1600 1700 1800 1900
The distribution is skewed to the left.

(d) All the observations in the sample have breaking force that is greater than 1500 pounds
and, hence, will fulfill the company's requirement.
3.68 (a), (b)

Bundle Score Typical Cost ($)
Mean 54.775 24.175
Standard Error 4.367344951 2.866224064
Median 62 20
Mode 75 8
Sample Variance 762.9480769 328.6096154
Kurtosis -0.845357193 2.766393511
Skewness -0.48041728 1.541239625
Range 98 83
Minimum 2 5
Maximum 100 88
Sum 2191 967
Count 40 40
First Quartile 34 9
Third Quartile 75 31
Interquartile Range 41 22
CV 50.43% 74.98%
(c)
Boxplot
Typical Cost
($)
Bundle
Score
0 20 40 60 80 100
The typical cost is right-skewed, while the bundle score is left-skewed.
cov ( X , Y )
(d) r= = 0.3465
S X SY

(e) The mean typical cost is $24.18, with an average spread around the mean equaling
$18.13. The spread between the lowest and highest costs is $83. The middle 50% of the
typical cost fall over a range of $22 from $9 to $31, while half of the typical cost is
below $20. The mean bundle score is 54.775, with an average spread around the mean
equaling 27.6215. The spread between the lowest and highest scores is 98. The middle
50% of the scores fall over a range of 41 from 34 to 75, while half of the scores are
below 62. The typical cost is right-skewed, while the bundle score is left-skewed. There
is a weak positive linear relationship between typical cost and bundle score.
3.69 Excel output:

Teabags
Mean 5.5014
Median 5.515
Mode 5.53
Kurtosis 0.127022
Skewness -0.15249
Range 0.52
Minimum 5.25
Maximum 5.77
Sum 275.07
Count 50
First Quartile 5.44
Third Quartile 5.57
CV 1.9237%
(a) mean = 5.5014, median = 5.515, first quartile = 5.44, third quartile = 5.57
(b) range = 0.52, interquartile range = 0.13, variance = 0.0112,
standard deviation = 0.10583, coefficient of variation = 1.924%
(c) The mean weight of the tea bags in the sample is 5.5014 grams while the middle ranked
weight is 5.515. The company should be concerned about the central tendency because
that is where the majority of the weight will cluster around. The average of the squared
differences between the weights in the sample and the sample mean is 0.0112 whereas
the square-root of it is 0.106 gram. The difference between the lightest and the heaviest
tea bags in the sample is 0.52. 50% of the tea bags in the sample weigh between 5.44
and 5.57 grams. According to the empirical rule, about 68% of the tea bags produced
will have weight that falls within 0.106 grams around 5.5014 grams. The company
producing the tea bags should be concerned about the variation because tea bags will
not weigh exactly the same due to various factors in the production process, e.g.
temperature and humidity inside the factory, differences in the density of the tea, etc.
Having some idea about the amount of variation will enable the company to adjust the
production process accordingly.

3.69 (d)
cont.
Teabags
5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6
The data is slightly left skewed.

(e) On average, the weight of the teabags is quite close to the target of 5.5 grams. Even
though the mean weight is close to the target weight of 5.5 grams, the standard
deviation of 0.106 indicates that about 75% of the teabags will fall within 0.212 grams
around the target weight of 5.5 grams. The interquartile range of 0.13 also indicates
that half of the teabags in the sample fall in an interval 0.13 grams around the median
weight of 5.515 grams. The process can be adjusted to reduce the variation of the
weight around the target mean.

Five-number Summary
Boston Vermont
Minimum 0.04 0.02
Median 0.23 0.2
Third 0.32 0.28
Quartile
Maximum 0.98 0.83
(b)
Vermont
Boston
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Both distributions are right skewed.

3.70 (c) Both sets of shingles did quite well in achieving a granule loss of 0.8 gram or less.
cont. The Boston shingles had only two data points greater than 0.8 gram. The next highest to
these was 0.6 gram. These two data points can be considered outliers. Only 1.176% of
the shingles failed the specification. In the Vermont shingles, only one data point was
greater than 0.8 gram. The next highest was 0.58 gram. Thus, only 0.714% of the
shingles failed to meet the specification.
3.71 (a) PHStat output:

Five-Number Summary
City Suburban
Minimum 25 26
First Quartile 37 35
Median 46.5 43.5
Maximum 80 71
(b)
Boxplot
Suburban
City
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
The distribution of the cost is right-skewed for both city and suburban restaurants.
(c) r = 0.7388. There is a moderate positive linear relationship between the
cost and rating of the restaurants. The higher priced restaurants tend to receive higher
rating than the lower priced restaurants.
3.72 (a), (b), (c)

Calories Protein Cholesterol
Calories 1
Protein 0.464411 1
Cholesterol 0.177665 0.141673 1
(d) There is a rather weak positive linear relationship between calories and protein with a
correlation coefficient of 0.46. The positive linear relationship between calories and
cholesterol is quite weak at .178.

3.73 (a),(b) PHStat output:

Two-Star Three-Star Four-Star
Mean 63.90698 87.18605 123.0233
Standard Error 2.970101 3.987141 5.281918
Median 70 88 121
Mode 82 84 74
Standard Deviation 19.47625 26.14543 34.63585
Sample Variance 379.3245 683.5836 1199.642
Kurtosis -0.51632 0.029995 -0.74668
Skewness -0.1917 0.136329 0.265007
Range 82 122 131
Minimum 23 33 67
Maximum 105 155 198
Sum 2748 3749 5290
Count 43 43 43
First Quartile 46 69 98
Third Quartile 80 105 151
CV 30.48% 29.99% 28.15%
Interquartile Range 34 36 53
(c) The average prices of the two-star, three-star and four-star hotels are 63.91, 87.19 and
123.02 British pounds, respectively while the middle rank prices are 70, 88 and 121
British pounds, respectively. The difference in prices between the lowest and highest
price hotels of the two-star, three-star and four-star hotels are 82, 122 and 131 British
pounds, respectively while the difference in prices among the middle 50% hotels are 34,
36 and 53 British pounds, respectively. The average spread of the prices around the
mean for the two-star, three-star and four-star hotels are 19.48, 26.15 and 34.64 British
pounds, respectively. The amount of average spread around the mean in relative to the
mean prices of the two-star, three-star and four-star hotels are 30.48%, 29.99% and
28.15%, respectively.
(d)
Boxplot
Four-Star
Three-Star
Two-Star
20 70 120 170
The prices of the three-star and four-star hotels are slightly right-skewed while the
prices of the two-star hotels are slightly left-skewed.

3.73 (e) Covariance Matrix

cont.
Two-Star 379.3245
Three-Star 401.113 683.5836
Four-Star 431.4784 791.3289 1199.642
(f) Correlation coefficient matrix

Two-Star 1
Three-Star 0.787708 1
Four-Star 0.639628 0.873847 1
(g) The correlation coefficient is more valuable for expressing the relationship because it
does not depend on the units used.
(h) The average price of a room at two-star, three-star, and four-star hotels are all linearly
positively related to each other.
3.74 (a), (b)

Property Taxes Per Capita ($)
Mean 1332.235
Median 1230
Mode #N/A
Kurtosis 0.539467
Skewness 0.918321
Range 2479
Minimum 506
Maximum 2985
Sum 67944
Count 51
First Quartile 867
Third Quartile 1633
6 * std.dev 3466.985
1.33 * std.dev 768.515

3.74 (c)
cont.
Boxplot
Property
Taxes Per
Capita ($)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

(d) The distribution of the property taxes per capita is right-skewed with an average value
of $1,332.24, a median of $1,230 and an average spread around the mean of $577.83.
There is an outlier in the right tail at $2985 while the standard deviation is about
43.37% of the average. Twenty-five percent of the states have property taxes that fall
below $864 while twenty-five percent have property taxes higher than $1,633.
3.75 (a), (b)

Compensation ($ millions) Return in 2012 (%)
Mean 10.94658824 20.52647059

Standard Error 0.468543426 1.977423312
Median 9.6 18
Mode 10.3 19
Sample Variance 37.32060013 664.7345023
Kurtosis 3.056261448 1.86456751
Skewness 1.536390516 0.942997976
Range 36.68 165
Minimum 0.42 -46
Maximum 37.1 119
Sum 1860.92 3489.5
Count 170 170
First Quartile 7 5
Third Quartile 12.8 29
Interquartile Range 5.8 24
CV 55.81% 125.61%

3.75 (c)
cont.
Boxplot
Return in 2012
(%)
Compensation
($ millions)
-50 0 50 100
The data are right-skewed.
(d) The average total compensation is $ 10.9466 million. Half of the CEOs have a total
compensation of less than $9.6 million. One-quarter of the CEOs have a total
compensation of less than $7 million while another one-quarter have a total
compensation in excess of $ 12.8 million. The spread of the total compensation among
all CEOs is $36.68 million. The middle 50% of the total compensation is spread over $
5.8 million. The average spread of the total compensation around the mean is 6.1091
million.
(e) Correlation coefficient between compensation and the investment return in 2012, r =
0.1719.
(f) There does not appear to be any linear relationship between compensation and the
investment return in 2012.
3.76 (a), (b)

Abandonment rate in % (7:00AM-3:00PM)
Mean 13.86363636
Median 10
Mode 9
Kurtosis 0.723568739
Skewness 1.180708144
Range 29
Minimum 5
Maximum 34
Sum 305
Count 22
First Quartile 9
Third Quartile 20
CV 54.99%

(c)
Boxplot
Abandonment
rate in %
(7:00AM-
3:00PM)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
The data are right-skewed.
(d) r = 0.7575
(e) The average abandonment rate is 13.86%. Half of the abandonment rates are less than
10%. One-quarter of the abandonment rates are less than 9% while another one-quarter
are more than 20%. The overall spread of the abandonment rates is 29%. The middle
50% of the abandonment rates are spread over 11%. The average spread of
abandonment rates around the mean is 7.62%. The abandonment rates are right-
skewed.
3.77 (a), (b)

Annual Time Sitting in Traffic (hours) Cost of Sitting in Traffic($)
Mean 39.12903226 770.3548387
Standard Error 2.605099191 52.39189686
Median 37 746
Mode 35 512
Sample Variance 210.3827957 85092.23656
Kurtosis 0.161745918 0.534793444
Skewness 0.714517855 0.694052033
Range 55 1223
Minimum 19 345
Maximum 74 1568
Sum 1213 23881
Count 31 31
First Quartile 27 512
Interquartile Range 20 430
CV 37.07% 37.87%

(c)
Boxplot
Cost of Sitting
in Traffic($)
Annual Time
Sitting in Traffic
(hours)
10 510 1010 1510

Both the time spent sitting in traffic and the cost of sitting in traffic are right-skewed.
(d) r = 0.7970.
(e) The average time spent sitting in traffic is 39.1290 hours. Half of the time spent sitting
in traffic is less than 37 hours. One-quarter of the time spent sitting in traffic is less
than 27 hours while another one-quarter is more than 47 hours. The overall spread of
the time spent sitting in traffic is 55 hours. The middle 50% of the time spent sitting in
traffic spreads over 20 hours. The average spread of time spend sitting in traffic around
the mean is 14.5046.
The average cost of sitting in traffic is $770.35. Half of the cost of sitting in traffic is
less than $746. One-quarter of the cost of sitting in traffic is less than $512 while
another one-quarter is more than $942. The overall spread of the cost of sitting in traffic
is $1223. The middle 50% of the cost of sitting in traffic spreads over $430. The
average spread of cost of sitting in traffic around the mean is $ 291.71.

3.78 (a), (b)

Average Credit Score
Mean 746.2238
Median 749
Mode 760
Kurtosis -0.83035
Skewness -0.22982
Range 89
Minimum 700
Maximum 789
Sum 106710
Count 143
First Quartile 730
Third Quartile 763
CV 2.92%
(c)
Boxplot
Average Credit
Score
690 740 790 840

The data are quite symmetrical.
(d) The average of the average credit scores is 746.2238. Half of the average credit scores
are less than 749. One-quarter of the average credit scores are less than 730 while
another one-quarter is more than 763. The overall spread of average credit scores is 89.
The middle 50% of the average credit scores spread over 33. The average spread of
average credit scores around the mean is 21.7807.

3.80 Excel output:

Alcohol % Calories Carbohydrates
Mean 5.235592105 154.3092105 11.96394737
Standard Error 0.115998617 3.616003621 0.399234292
Median 4.9 150 12.055
Mode 4.2 110 12
Standard Deviation 1.430126995 44.58108671 4.922090919
Sample Variance 2.045263223 1987.473292 24.22697902
Kurtosis 4.370842968 2.960631343 1.238172847
Skewness 1.434987665 1.211924335 0.478507837
Range 11.1 275 30.2
Minimum 0.4 55 1.9
Maximum 11.5 330 32.1
Sum 795.81 23455 1818.52
Count 152 152 152
First Quartile 4.4 129 8.3
Third Quartile 5.6 166 14.5
Interquartile Range 1.2 37 6.2
CV 27.32% 28.89% 41.14%
Boxplot
Carbohydrates
Calories
Alcohol %
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
The amount of % alcohol is right skewed and average at 5.24%. Half of the beers have %
alcohol below 4.9%. The middle 50% of the beers have alcohol content spread over a range of
1.2%. The highest alcohol content is at 11.5% while the lowest is at 0.4%. The average scatter
of alcohol content around the mean is 1.4301%.
The number of calories is right-skewed and average at 154.3092. Half of the beers have
calories below 150. The middle 50% of the beers have calories spread over a range of 37. The
highest number of calories is 330 while the lowest is 55. The average scatter of calories around
the mean is 44.5811.
The number of carbohydrates is right-skewed from the boxplot and average at 11.9639, which is
slightly lower than median at 12.055. Half of the beers have carbohydrates below 12.055. The

middle 50% of the beers have carbohydrates spread over a range of 6.2. The highest number of
carbohydrates is 32.1 while the lowest is 1.9. The average scatter of carbohydrates around the
mean is 4.9221.

Solutions To End-of-Section and Chapter Review Problems 137

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Solutions To End-of-Section and Chapter Review Problems 137

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solutions To End-of-Section and Chapter Review Problems 137

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solutions to End-of-Section and Chapter Review Problems 137

3.2 (a) Excel output:

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

(b) Range = 10 Variance = 12.66667

3.3 (a) Excel output:

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.8 (a) Measure Type 1 Type 2

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.9 (a) Mean = 13.6 Median = 14 Mode = 14

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.10 (a) Mean = 6.647

3.11 (a), (b)

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.12 (a) Mean = 36

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

Firm Number of Partners Z Score

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.14 (a) Mean = 33.65

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.16 (a) Mean = 156

3.17 (a) Mean = 4.346

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.18 Excel output:

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.27 (a) Q1 = 4, Q3 = 10, interquartile range = 6

Data is skewed right.

3.28 (a) Q1 = 6, Q3 = 11, interquartile range = 5

Data is slightly skewed to the right.

3.29 (a) Q1 = 5, Q3 = 12, interquartile range = 7

Data shows slight skewedness to the right.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.30 (a) Q1 = -6.5, Q3 = 8, interquartile range = 14.5

The distribution is left-skewed.

3.31 (a), (b)

The number of partners is right-skewed.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.32 (a), (b)

3.33 (a) Q1 = 235, Q3 = 278, IQR = 43

Data indicates skewedness to the right.

3.34 (a) Q1 = 34.5, Q3 = 37.5, IQR = 3

Data indicates skewedness to the right.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

3.35 (a), (b)

3.36 Excel output for Residential Area:

Excel output for Residential Area:

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

Excel output for Commercial District:

The distribution is skewed to the left.

© 2015 Pearson Education Ltd.

The distribution is skewed slightly to the right.

3.38 (a) Population Mean = 6

3.41 (a) µ = 1.477 σ 2 = 0.9123