Question

http://prnt.sc/b4f138 PLEASE HELP,

Answer 1

I have that the correlation coefficient is 4=-0.04 i think

Answer 2

@mathmale could you help me please warren, some statisitcs

Answer 3

Hello, H!
Have you tried plotting those four points and then attempting to draw a regression line thru them? It took me only about a minute to do that.
My graph tells me that there is some correlation here, but it's very weak.
If you'd please plot those points and draw that line, we could discuss this further.

Answer 4

yes i have that there is a very weak correlation, -0.04, around there

Answer 5

Good. That means you can see that your regression line slopes downward just a little bit.

Answer 6

yeah thats what i see, i dont understand how to explain the "relationship"

Answer 7

I'd write something like this: "The only possible regression line would be one drawn between the upper two points and the lower two points and roughly halfway between them. This line appears to have a very small negative slope. This means that as time goes on, the velocity is decreasing slightly."

Answer 8

yes, thats what i was thinking about writing, i jsut didnt know how to quite convey it

Answer 9

"The small negative slope indicates a weak negative correlation between time and velocity."

Answer 10

okay so that is part A finished up, lets do Part B,

Answer 11

Part B is quite different; it does not hinge upon your graph.
Rather, you calculate how much the velocity changes over the interval 10 to 20 minutes.

Answer 12

it increased by 0.6

Answer 13

Yes, and so you have a positive acceleration of 0.6 mph/minute on that time interval.

Answer 14

Sorry, I got that wrong by specifying "mph;" we're not converting minutes to hours here.

Answer 15

yes, would the slope be like 0.6/10 or something

Answer 16

We have a problem here that is not of our own making. I've just noticed that the table gives the units of velocity as "miles," which is definitely wrong. In this case the correct units would be either "miles per minute" or "miles per hour."

Answer 17

distance would be measured in miles,
velocity in miles/hr or miles/min,

and

...if miles per min...the units of acc'n would be miles per (minute squared).

Answer 18

I'd suggest you find the acceleration (the time rate of change of velocity) in miles per (minute squared) and continue by explaining that this result represents the acceleration of the car over that particular 10-minute time span.

Answer 19

One of the other participants in the Math Chat asked me to ask you to stop spamming that Chat. I wish you would. It's distracting you from this conversation about velocity and acceleration.

Answer 20

oops sorry :(

Answer 21

if its 0.6 mph that would mean we need to divide that by 6

Answer 22

It's a hard temptation to resist, but over the long run you'd be much better off not spending more than a minute or two a day chatting there.

No, that was my mistake; disregard the 'h' (for hours).

Answer 23

The use of "miles" as the unit of measurement for velocity is clearly wrong.
I'd suggest you explain this in your answer and move on to state, additionally, that you're going to assume that the correct units of measurement for velocity in this problem are "miles per minute."

The velocity changes from 0.2 miles per min to 0.8 miles per min over the period [10 min, 20 min].

So, what is the acceleration over that time period? Review this discussion: what are the proper units of measurement for acc'n.?

Answer 24

find the following: (Change in velocity, in miles per minute) / (Change in time)

Answer 25

I need and want to get off the 'Net after having spent hours on it already, today.
Regarding the third part of this question:

Please look up both "causation" and "correlatioon" and try to find definitions and examples that apply to statistics. Then ask yourself: which of the following makes more sense?

time causes velocity or changes in velocity

time and velocity are in this case correlated

Answer 26

sorry, I had logged off to focus. thank you so much @mathmale