Correlation Data
Correlation Data
Number of fruits
fertilizer (kg)
1 25
2.5 32
3 35
3 32
3.4 35
4 39
4 41
4.5 40
Amount of fertilizer (kg)
Amount of fertilizer (kg)
Number of fruits
Amount of fertilizer (kg)
Number of fruits
1
0.96739509464143 1
fruits
2.44948974278318
2.36962436154293numerator
0.935853269136293
0.0641467308637066
0.253272049116571denominator
9.35604370797464t
2.44948974278318
2.36962436154293
2.3696244 0.935853269136293
2.3696244 0.0641467308637066
0.253272049116571
0.253272 9.35604370797464
14.52071
14
Standard E 0.267642771359932
Median 3.4
Mode 3
Standard D 0.708116213222501
Sample Var 0.501428571428574
Kurtosis -1.2169787582893
Skewness 0.0840881177867504
Range 2
Minimum 2.5
Maximum 4.5
Sum 24.4
Count 7
Amount of fertilizer (kg)
Number of fruits
t Stat -16.63778
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.967395
R Square 0.935853
Adjusted R 0.925162
Standard E 0.299943
Observatio 8
ANOVA
df SS MS
Total 7 8.415
Coefficients
Standard Error t Stat
Intercept -3.835792 0.7568 -5.068438
Number of f0.201026 0.021486 9.356044
MS F Significance F
7.875205 87.53555 8.455E-05
0.089966
87.5355538655323 8.455E-05
1 3
2 5
3 9
4 6
5 7
6 5
7 8
8 4
9 7
10 6
11 3
% of income
spent for food
38
34
25
39
40
35
25
30
35
35
40
Size of Family
Size of Family 1
SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP
9 11-2=9
3 9sqrt=3
1.7320508075689 sqrt3
-0.9889090840267 n
-0.9889090840267
1.9889090840267
1.4102868800449 d
-1.4261036760855 t
0.1095175461915 <
REJECT NULL HO
% of income spent for food
1 Moderate Correlation
There is negative relationship existing between the size of family percentage of income spent for foo
ANOVA
df SS
Regression 1 8.64913544669
Residual 8 21.3508645533
Total 9 30
MS F Significance F
8.649135446686 3.2407626118 0.109518
2.668858069164