Você está na página 1de 5

Emma Ivory and Marissa Beck

Ms. Coley
CHS Statistics
2 April 2017

Intro/Procedure:
Mr. Jonathan Wallace, a famous pop music producer, was found dead in
his bathtub. It was our job as detectives to find out who was responsible for
this mans death. We had a list of three possible suspects, Penelope Paige, a
pop star who is 54 with green eyes and blonde hair. Her possible motive is
that she was suing Wallace over the failure of her last album. The next
suspect is Rex Chapman, a rock guitarist who is 58 with brown eyes and
blonde hair. His possible motive is that he accused Wallace of stealing profits
from his hit single Walk It Off. The last suspect is Dirty Dawg, a rapper who
is 60 with brown eyes and black hair. His possible motive is he wanted out
of a record contract with Wallace. While investigating the crime scene, the
only significant clue that we came across was a set of muddy footprints,
which were inferred to belong to the murderer. The stride length of the
muddy footprints, from heel to heel, was 64-65cm and the length of the
footprint itself was 25-30cm. From there we decide to come up with sample
of people and measure their height, shoe size, and stride length and run
hypothesis tests to find regression lines to see which suspect fell into the
range given, from there we would be able to determine who committed the
crime. To find the height of the person me measure with a tape measurer,
and to find show size we also measured their shoes with a tape measurer. In
a group we brain stormed various ways to find someones stride length. We
ended up testing two of the brainstormed ways to collect data. First we
placed a walk way of newspaper out on the floor and had someone step in a
bucket of water and walk across the paper leaving footprints to measure.
That however was not the case, this plan kind of back fired. The water didnt
leave defining footprints to measure, so we concluded that it was not the
most accurate way to get our data. The next way we tested to get our data
was the way we decided to stick with. We had someone walk seven steps
and have them stop, where ever their last step was we marked (where the
heel was). Then we measured the distance from where their heels started to
where they ended, from there we divided the total length of seven steps by 7
to get the stride length and put the lengths in both inches and centimeters.
Next we had to find the r and in order to run the hypothesis tests. When
finding the r value for height vs. shoe length and height vs. stride we used
inches for all the calculations. After finding the r values we preceded to the
hypothesis test for height vs. shoe length, we found the critical value using
invT on the calculator. Our alpha value was .05; we decided to use this to
eliminate room for an error. This test is a two tailed test therefore you must
divide alpha by two and use that number as the area and the df= n-2 .For
the critical value we got . When plugging in our data to the
Standardized Test Stat we got 6.691652265 and because that does fall in the
rejection region (set by the critical value) we had to reject because there
was enough evidence to suggest a significant linear correlation exists
between height and shoe length. Then we ran a hypothesis test for height vs.
Stride. We used the r values we got from the graph above (using inches).
Again we used the invT function on our calculators to find the critical value
(using the same alpha and it is also a two tailed test, therefore flowing same
process). As a critical value we got , . Then when using the
Standardized Test Stat equation we got 2.430263729. Because that does fall
in the rejection region (set by the critical value) we had to reject because
there was enough evidence to suggest a significant linear correlation exists
between height and stride length. After we ran the hypothesis tests, we
need to find the regression line. For both of those we used the data list and
the function LinReg(ax+b) from there we plugged in the suspects
information in for x in the equation to see if they fall in the range given
from the original footprints.

Data:
Height Height Shoe Size Shoe Distance Stride Stride
(Inches) (Feet) (inches) Size walked in (Inches) (Centimeters
(cm) 7 steps )
73.25 in 6' 1" 13.58268 in 34.5 cm 221.75 in 31.678571 80.46357143
4
73 in 6' 1" 12.9921 in 33 cm 191.5 in 27.357142 69.48714286
9
68.5 in 5' 7" 12.00787 in 30.5 cm 180.75 in 25.821428 65.58642857
6
70.25 in 5' 9" 11.4173 in 29 cm 217.9 in 31.128571 79.06657143
4
72.5 in 6' 12.00787 in 30.5 cm 222.8 in 31.828571 80.84457143
4
67.5 in 5' 6" 11.0236 in 28 cm 183.8 in 26.257142 66.69314286
9
69.5 in 5' 8" 11.0236 in 28 cm 214.7 in 30.671428 77.90542857
6
68 in 5' 7" 10.43307 in 26.5 cm 205.8 in 29.4 74.676
66.25 in 5' 5" 10.6299 in 27 cm 174 in 24.857142 63.13714286
9
68 in 5' 7" 10.6299 in 27 cm 215.6 in 30.8 78.232
65 in 5' 4" 9.44882 in 24 cm 165.25 in 23.607142 59.96214286
9
74.5 in 6' 2" 12.2047 in 31 cm 211.7 in 30.242857 76.81685714
1
72 in 6' 11.811 in 30 cm 186.6 in 26.657142 67.70914286
9
68 in 5' 7" 11.0236 in 28 cm 202.3 in 28.9 73.406
73 in 6' 1" 12.2047 in 31 cm 189.4 in 27.057142 68.72514286
9
69.5 in 5' 8" 10.82677 in 27.5 cm 177.25 in 25.321428 64.31642857
6
67.5 in 5' 6" 10.6299 in 27 cm 163.75 in 23.392857 59.41785714
1
Values:
r-value for Height vs. Shoe Length = .8654680773 (Strong Positive Correlation)
r-value for Height vs. Stride = .5315156347 (Moderate Positive Correlation)
Hypothesis Test for Height vs. Shoe Length:
H 0 : =0 Degrees of Freedom = n 2 = 17 2 = 15

H a : 0 = .05 r =.8654680773 r 2= 7490349928

Critical Values invT (.025, 15) t 0 = 2.131449536

r .8654680773
t=
Standardized Test Stat:
1r 2
n2 1.7490349928
172
= 6.691652265

Decision: Reject H0

Statement: There is enough evidence to suggest a significant linear correlation exists


between height and shoe length.
Hypothesis Test for Height vs. Stride:
H 0 : =0 Degrees of Freedom = n 2 = 17 2 = 15

H a : 0 = 2
r = .5315156347 r = .28250887
Critical Values invT (.025, 15) t 0 = 2.131449536

r .5315156347
t=
Standardized Test Stat:
1r 2
n2 1.28250887
172
= 2.430263729

Decision: Reject H0

Statement: There is enough evidence to suggest a significant linear correlation exists


between height and stride.
Regression Line for Height vs. Shoe Length:
^y = .3175475895x - 10.75273106

Penelope Paige (64 inches): ^y = .3175475895(64) - 10.75273106 = 9.5703 inches

Rex Chapman (68 inches): ^y = .3175475895(68) - 10.75273106 = 10.8405 inches

Dirty Dawg (72 inches): ^y = .3175475895(72) - 10.75273106 = 12.1107 inches

Estimated Shoe Length:


Penelope Paige: 24.308562 centimeters
Rex Chapman: 27.53487 centimeters Target Range: 25-30 cm
Dirty Dawg: 30.761178 centimeters
Regression Line for Height vs. Stride:
^y = .5411273769x 9.819634071

Penelope Paige (64 inches): ^y = .5411273769(64) 9.819634071 = 24.8125 inches

Rex Chapman (68 inches): ^y = .5411273769(68) 9.819634071 = 26.9770 inches

Dirty Dawg (72 inches): ^y = .5411273769(72) 9.819634071 = 29.1415 inches

Estimated Stride:
Penelope Paige: 63.02375 centimeters
Rex Chapman: 68.52158 centimeters Target Range: 64-65 cm
Dirty Dawg: 74.01941 centimeters
Suspect: Rex Chapman
Conclusion:
We believe that Rex Chapman murdered Jonathon Wallace. He was the only suspect that
fell in the target range for the estimated shoe length. Although he was not in the target stride
length, our sample correlation coefficient was not as high as we would have liked it to be. We
believe that the shoe length would have given us a more accurate answer because that is a more
precise calculation than measuring someones stride length, since it could change at any time. We
are confident that Rex Chapman murdered Wallace because we had a strong sample correlation
coefficient.

There are errors that may have occurred during the test. One error includes how natural
the walk was, or some people just walk differently than others. Also, it was very difficult to make
precise measurements, especially since we did some parts in inches and others in centimeters.

Você também pode gostar