 The ANOVA table shows the results of a linear regression analysis that examines the

relationship between the dependent variable (Price$) and the independent variables
(Gender_1, carbrand_1, model_1).
 The F statistic is 23.254, which is the ratio of the regression mean
square (5071515802.391) to the residual mean square (218096192.734). This measures
how well the regression model fits the data compared to the average model.
 The Sig. value is .000, which is the p-value of the F-test. This indicates the probability of
obtaining an F statistic as large or larger than the observed one, under the null hypothesis
that the regression coefficients are zero. A small p-value (usually less than 0.05) means
that we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude that at least one of the regression
coefficients is significantly different from zero.
 The R Square value is .003, which is the coefficient of determination. This measures
the proportion of the total variation in the dependent variable that is explained by the
regression model. A higher R Square value means a better fit. In this case, the R Square
value is very low, suggesting that the regression model only explains 0.3% of the
variation in the price.
COEFFIENTS:

The coefficients under ANOVA show the following information:

 The constant term is the intercept of the regression line, which represents the average
price of the cars when all the independent variables are zero. In this case, the constant is
26766.078, meaning that the average price of a car with no gender, car brand, or model
preference is $26766.078.
 The Gender_1 coefficient is the slope of the regression line for the gender variable,
which represents the change in price for each unit change in gender. In this case, the
Gender_1 coefficient is -242.673, meaning that the price of a car decreases by $242.673
for each unit increase in gender. Since gender is a dummy variable with 0 for male and 1
for female, this implies that the price of a car is lower for female customers than for male
customers, by $242.673 on average.
 The carbrand_1 coefficient is the slope of the regression line for the car brand variable,
which represents the change in price for each unit change in car brand. In this case, the
carbrand_1 coefficient is 30.053, meaning that the price of a car increases by $30.053 for
each unit increase in car brand. Since car brand is a categorical variable with values from
1 to 5, this implies that the price of a car increases with the car brand value, by $30.053
on average.
 The model_1 coefficient is the slope of the regression line for the model variable, which
represents the change in price for each unit change in model. In this case, the model_1
coefficient is 16.504, meaning that the price of a car increases by $16.504 for each unit
increase in model. Since model is a continuous variable with values from 1 to 100, this
implies that the price of a car increases with the model value, by $16.504 on average.

CORRELATIONS:
  The Pearson correlation coefficients show that there is no linear relationship between engine,
transmission, and annual income with the price of the car. All the coefficients are very close to
zero and not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

 The Kendall’s tau_b and Spearman’s rho coefficients show that there is no monotonic
relationship between engine, transmission, and annual income with the price of the car. All the
coefficients are very close to zero and not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

 This means that engine and transmission choices do not correlate with budget flexibility ,
and annual income does not affect the price sensitivity of the customers1.

ONE WAY ANOVA STEP3:

 Oneway ANOVA: This is a statistical test that compares the means of a continuous
variable (Price$) across different groups of a categorical variable (BodyStyle).
 Between Groups: This is the sum of squares of the differences between the group means
and the grand mean. It measures how much variation is explained by the grouping factor.
 Within Groups: This is the sum of squares of the differences between each observation
and its group mean. It measures how much variation is unexplained by the grouping
factor.
 F-statistic: This is the ratio of the between-groups mean square to the within-groups
mean square. It tests the null hypothesis that all group means are equal.
 P-value: This is the probability of obtaining an F-statistic as extreme or more extreme
than the observed one, assuming the null hypothesis is true. It indicates the significance
level of the test.
 Interpretation: The p-value is less than 0.05, which means we can reject the null
hypothesis and conclude that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean
price of cars across different body styles.

ENGINE AND GENDER AND PRICE

 The table shows the frequencies and statistics of the variables engine, gender, and price for a
sample of 23,906 car buyers.

 The variable engine has two categories: overhead camshaft and double overhead camshaft.
The table shows that 11,335 buyers (47.4%) preferred the former, while 12,571 buyers (52.6%)
preferred the latter.

 The variable gender has two categories: male and female. The table shows that 18,798 buyers
(78.6%) were male, while 5,108 buyers (21.4%) were female.

 The variable price is a continuous variable that measures the price of the car in dollars. The table
shows that the mean price was 28,090.25, the median price was 23,000, the standard deviation
was 14,788.688, the minimum price was 1,200, and the maximum price was 85,800.

CROSSTABS:
  The crosstabulation shows the frequency distribution of transmission types (auto or manual)
and body styles (hardtop, hatchback, passenger, sedan, or SUV) among the 23906 cases in the
data set.

 The marginal totals show that manual transmission is slightly more popular than auto
transmission (11335 vs 12571), and that SUV is the most common body style (6374), followed
by hatchback (6128).

 The cell frequencies show that the most common combination of transmission and body style
is manual SUV (3288), followed by auto SUV (3086) and auto hatchback (3458).

 The row percentages show that auto transmission is more likely to be paired
with hatchback (27.5%) or SUV (24.5%) than with other body styles, while manual
transmission is more likely to be paired with SUV (29%) or hardtop (13.8%) than with other
body styles.

 The column percentages show that hardtop and passenger body styles are more likely to
have manual transmission (52.6% and 48.8%, respectively) than auto transmission (47.4% and
51.2%, respectively), while hatchback, sedan, and SUV body styles are more likely to have auto
transmission (56.4%, 57.9%, and 48.4%, respectively) than manual transmission (43.6%, 42.1%,
and 51.6%, respectively).

CORELATIONS:

 The document shows the results of a statistical analysis of the relationship between car
specifications and consumer choices, using data from 23,906 car buyers.
 The document uses three methods to measure the correlation between different variables:
Pearson’s correlation coefficient, Kendall’s tau-b, and Spearman’s rho. All three methods
range from -1 to 1, where -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation, 0 indicates no
correlation, and 1 indicates a perfect positive correlation.
 The document reports the correlation coefficients and their significance levels for three
pairs of variables: price and body style, price and engine type, and body style and engine
type. The significance level indicates how likely it is that the observed correlation is due
to chance. A lower significance level means a stronger evidence for the correlation. The
document uses 0.01 and 0.05 as the significance levels, which are common in social
sciences.
 Based on the document, here are some interpretations of the correlations:
o Price and body style: The correlation coefficients are very small and negative,
ranging from -0.02 to -0.015. This means that there is a weak and negative
relationship between price and body style, meaning that higher-priced cars tend to
have less popular body styles, and vice versa. However, the significance levels are
also very low, ranging from 0.002 to 0.003, which means that this relationship is
unlikely to be due to chance. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a
statistically significant but weak and negative correlation between price and body
style.
o Price and engine type: The correlation coefficients are even smaller and
negative, ranging from -0.058 to -0.011. This means that there is a very weak and
negative relationship between price and engine type, meaning that higher-priced
 cars tend to have less preferred engine types, and vice versa. However, the
significance levels are also very high, ranging from 0.081 to 0.000, which means
that this relationship is either very likely or very unlikely to be due to chance,
depending on the method used. Therefore, we can conclude that there is a
statistically insignificant or very weak and negative correlation between price and
engine type, depending on the method used.
o Body style and engine type: The correlation coefficients are small and positive,
ranging from 0.016 to 0.013. This means that there is a weak and positive
relationship between body style and engine type, meaning that more popular body
styles tend to have more preferred engine types, and vice versa. However, the
significance levels are also low, ranging from 0.015 to 0.042, which means that
this relationship is unlikely to be due to chance. Therefore, we can conclude that
there is a statistically significant but weak and positive correlation between body
style and engine type.

COMPANY TABLE INTERPERTATION:

The table shows the frequency and percentage of different car companies in a sample of 23,906 cars.
The table also shows the cumulative percentage of each company, which is the sum of the percentages
of all the companies above it and itself. For example, the cumulative percentage of Volvo is 3.3%, which
is the same as its percentage. The cumulative percentage of Volkswagen is 8.9%, which is the sum of the
percentages of Volvo (3.3%) and Volkswagen (5.6%). The table indicates that the most common car
company in the sample is Chevrolet, with 7.6% of the cars, followed by Dodge and Ford, with 7.0% and
6.8% respectively. The least common car company in the sample is Jaguar, with only 0.8% of the cars.

BODYSTYLE TABLE INTERPRETATION:

 The table shows the frequency distribution of the variable BodyStyle, which is the type
of car body, for a sample of 23,906 cars.
 There are five categories of BodyStyle: SUV, Sedan, Passenger, Hatchback, and
Hardtop.
 The table also shows the percentages of each category, both in terms of the valid
percent (which excludes missing values) and the cumulative percent (which is the sum
of the valid percents up to that category).
 The most common BodyStyle is SUV, with 6,374 cars (26.7% of the valid cases),
followed by Hatchback, with 6,128 cars (25.6% of the valid cases).
 The least common BodyStyle is Hardtop, with 2,971 cars (12.4% of the valid cases).
 There are no missing values for the variable BodyStyle, as indicated by the N and
Missing rows.

STEP 2:
GENDER*COMPANY CROSSTAB:

 This table shows the frequency distribution of car buyers by gender and company. It
tells us how many buyers of each gender purchased a car from each company.
 The table also shows the row percentages, column percentages, and cumulative
percentages for each category. These percentages help us compare the relative
proportions of buyers across different groups.
 For example, we can see that Acura had a total of 689 buyers, of which 167 were female
and 522 were male. This means that 24.2% of Acura buyers were female and 75.8%
were male. We can also see that 2.9% of all buyers purchased an Acura, and that Acura
buyers accounted for 3.3% of all female buyers and 2.8% of all male buyers.
 The table also shows the results of some chi-square tests and symmetric measures.
These tests help us determine if there is a statistical association between gender and
company, or if the observed frequencies are due to chance.
 The Pearson chi-square test compares the observed frequencies with the expected
frequencies under the assumption of independence. The p-value of this test is 0.150,
which is greater than the common significance level of 0.05. This means that we fail to
reject the null hypothesis of independence, and conclude that there is no evidence of a
relationship between gender and company.
 The likelihood ratio test is an alternative to the Pearson chi-square test that is more
robust to small sample sizes and sparse data. The p-value of this test is 0.137, which is
also greater than 0.05. This means that we also fail to reject the null hypothesis of
independence using this test, and reach the same conclusion as before.
 The Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test is another alternative to the Pearson chi-square
test that is more appropriate for tables with more than two rows or columns. The p-value
of this test is not computed because there is insufficient memory. This means that we
cannot use this test to draw any conclusions about the relationship between gender and
company.
 The symmetric measures are correlation coefficients that measure the strength and
direction of the association between gender and company. These measures are only
available for numeric data, so they are not applicable to this table1.

GENDER*COLOR:

 The table shows the frequency distribution of car colors by gender of the buyers.
 The table has three columns: gender, color, and count. The gender column has two
values: female and male. The color column has three values: black, pale white, and red.
The count column shows the number of buyers for each gender and color combination.