statistics homework help?
Q. U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the average number of persons per household in the United States for census years between 1850 and 2000 are shown in the following table. Year Per House 1850 5.55 1860 5.28 1870 5.09 1880 5.04 1890 4.93 1900 4.76 1910 4.54 1920 4.34 1930 4.11 1940 3.67 1950 3.37 1960 3.35 1970 3.14 1980 2.76 1990 2.63 2000 2.59 (a) Determine the least squares line for these data. Use the equation of this line to estimate the number of persons per household in the year 2011. (b) What is the slope of the line? (c) Based on the regression line, what would be the predicted persons per household in the year 2300? (d) What is the lowest possible value of… [cont.]
Asked by Erin - Wed Feb 18 12:23:26 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. (a) The least squares regression line is y = 44.392 - 0.0209x where x is the year and the estimate for 2011 would be 2.36 persons. (b) The slope is therefore -0.0209 persons per year. That means the average occupancy is falling by about one person every 50 years. (c) For x = 2300, y = -3.7, which is clearly nonsense. (d) The minimum occupancy could be zero, if everyone was a vagrant and no one ever lived at an address; or 1.0 if everyone has to be listed as living somewhere ! The problem with this analysis arises from the assumption that the relationship is a straight line. Obviously it's not.
Answered by Victor - Wed Feb 18 12:41:44 2009
Q. U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the average number of persons per household in the United States for census years between 1850 and 2000 are shown in the following table. Year Per House 1850 5.55 1860 5.28 1870 5.09 1880 5.04 1890 4.93 1900 4.76 1910 4.54 1920 4.34 1930 4.11 1940 3.67 1950 3.37 1960 3.35 1970 3.14 1980 2.76 1990 2.63 2000 2.59 (a) Determine the least squares line for these data. Use the equation of this line to estimate the number of persons per household in the year 2011. (b) What is the slope of the line? (c) Based on the regression line, what would be the predicted persons per household in the year 2300? (d) What is the lowest possible value of… [cont.]
Asked by Erin - Wed Feb 18 12:23:26 2009 - - 2 Answers - 0 Comments
A. (a) The least squares regression line is y = 44.392 - 0.0209x where x is the year and the estimate for 2011 would be 2.36 persons. (b) The slope is therefore -0.0209 persons per year. That means the average occupancy is falling by about one person every 50 years. (c) For x = 2300, y = -3.7, which is clearly nonsense. (d) The minimum occupancy could be zero, if everyone was a vagrant and no one ever lived at an address; or 1.0 if everyone has to be listed as living somewhere ! The problem with this analysis arises from the assumption that the relationship is a straight line. Obviously it's not.
Answered by Victor - Wed Feb 18 12:41:44 2009
Possible clue found on great-grandfather: How can I gather more information on this possible person?
Q. Do you think this could be my great-grandfather? My grandfather Thomas Madigan was born on February 24, 1919 in Brooklyn, NY. He was the tenth of ten children, so it's possible his father could have been 39 years old when having him. His wife (my grandmother) was also born in 1919 in Brooklyn, NY. She was the seventh of seven children, as her father was was born in 1880. On this link, it says John Madigan (the name of my great-grandfather), was born in May 1880, so it's in the same time frame. The key though is that it says in the 1900 U.S. Census that he was residing in Brooklyn (Kings). This would have been two years after Brooklyn was consolidated into New York City. I know for certain that my grandfather's parents were born in the… [cont.]
Asked by Tom - Fri Mar 13 23:12:19 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. was wondering how you were coming along, Tom... I pulled up the John Madigan in 1900, born May 1880. This John is single, and living with his widowed father. No wife. If John and Margaret were married in 1898, this contradicts it. An 1898 marriage to Margaret is just about right. Meaning, they were married 21 yrs in 1919.. and like many persons in that day.. the standard is a child every other year. By the way.. I love that site. Experience helps to read the stuff. Look at the top, and you can save it as a jpeg to your computer. Also.. look to the side of the "save file" thingie, and there is a slider bar which allows you to zoom on the image. The drawback is not having 1910, 1920, 1930 so you can check all three. You also are hitting a… [cont.]
Answered by wendy c - Fri Mar 13 23:51:24 2009
Q. Do you think this could be my great-grandfather? My grandfather Thomas Madigan was born on February 24, 1919 in Brooklyn, NY. He was the tenth of ten children, so it's possible his father could have been 39 years old when having him. His wife (my grandmother) was also born in 1919 in Brooklyn, NY. She was the seventh of seven children, as her father was was born in 1880. On this link, it says John Madigan (the name of my great-grandfather), was born in May 1880, so it's in the same time frame. The key though is that it says in the 1900 U.S. Census that he was residing in Brooklyn (Kings). This would have been two years after Brooklyn was consolidated into New York City. I know for certain that my grandfather's parents were born in the… [cont.]
Asked by Tom - Fri Mar 13 23:12:19 2009 - - 3 Answers - 0 Comments
A. was wondering how you were coming along, Tom... I pulled up the John Madigan in 1900, born May 1880. This John is single, and living with his widowed father. No wife. If John and Margaret were married in 1898, this contradicts it. An 1898 marriage to Margaret is just about right. Meaning, they were married 21 yrs in 1919.. and like many persons in that day.. the standard is a child every other year. By the way.. I love that site. Experience helps to read the stuff. Look at the top, and you can save it as a jpeg to your computer. Also.. look to the side of the "save file" thingie, and there is a slider bar which allows you to zoom on the image. The drawback is not having 1910, 1920, 1930 so you can check all three. You also are hitting a… [cont.]
Answered by wendy c - Fri Mar 13 23:51:24 2009
geography 2?
Q. 5. The 1890 U.S. Census led some people to conclude that there was no longer a frontier line in the West. Early in the 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt advocated the conservation of the nation s natural resources. These events signaled a change in how people perceived A. farmland B. urban areas C. wilderness areas D. centers of industry and technology 6. The establishment of Yellow Stone National Park in 1876 and the expansion of the national park system under President Theodore Roosevelt highlighted the realization that our nation s natural resources needed protection by the federal government. These acts reflected a change in how people perceived A. Centers of industry and technology B. Wilderness areas… [cont.]
Asked by hottiegurl0420022000 - Thu Apr 10 11:08:56 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. 5) C 6) C 7) D 8) A 9) A 10) A 11) A 12) D 13) A 14) B 15) D
Answered by bored out of my mind - Thu Apr 10 11:18:53 2008
Q. 5. The 1890 U.S. Census led some people to conclude that there was no longer a frontier line in the West. Early in the 20th century, President Theodore Roosevelt advocated the conservation of the nation s natural resources. These events signaled a change in how people perceived A. farmland B. urban areas C. wilderness areas D. centers of industry and technology 6. The establishment of Yellow Stone National Park in 1876 and the expansion of the national park system under President Theodore Roosevelt highlighted the realization that our nation s natural resources needed protection by the federal government. These acts reflected a change in how people perceived A. Centers of industry and technology B. Wilderness areas… [cont.]
Asked by hottiegurl0420022000 - Thu Apr 10 11:08:56 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. 5) C 6) C 7) D 8) A 9) A 10) A 11) A 12) D 13) A 14) B 15) D
Answered by bored out of my mind - Thu Apr 10 11:18:53 2008
Math test help!!!! 50 point question!!!?
Q. The table gives the population of the united states, in millions for the years 1900-1990? YEAR - Population 1900 - 76 1910 - 92 1920 - 106 1930 -123 1940 -131 1950- 150 1960 - 179 1970- 203 1980 - 227 1990 - 250 A. Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to find equation, use that to predict the population for 1990. Compare with the actual figure and try to explain the discrepancy. B. Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1970 and 1980 to find an equation, use that to predict the population for 1990.Compare with the actual population. Use this model to predict the population in the years 2000 and 2010.
Asked by Dani - Sun Apr 6 15:34:48 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. A. The increase of population from1900 to 1910 was 16 mil which is 21.05% increase. Using that as the percentage in the formula, and 76 as the initial population, the equation is: 76 e^.2105t where t is the number of decades past 1900. The discrepency could be a larger percentage increase between 1900 and 1910 than other decades. B. Using 1970 and 1980 gives a different percentage of increase at 11.82%. The equation now changes to: 203 e^.1182t with t = # of decades so the population prediction is 289.4 mil in 2000 and 325.7 mil. in 2010
Answered by Rusty - Sun Apr 6 20:09:12 2008
Q. The table gives the population of the united states, in millions for the years 1900-1990? YEAR - Population 1900 - 76 1910 - 92 1920 - 106 1930 -123 1940 -131 1950- 150 1960 - 179 1970- 203 1980 - 227 1990 - 250 A. Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to find equation, use that to predict the population for 1990. Compare with the actual figure and try to explain the discrepancy. B. Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1970 and 1980 to find an equation, use that to predict the population for 1990.Compare with the actual population. Use this model to predict the population in the years 2000 and 2010.
Asked by Dani - Sun Apr 6 15:34:48 2008 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. A. The increase of population from1900 to 1910 was 16 mil which is 21.05% increase. Using that as the percentage in the formula, and 76 as the initial population, the equation is: 76 e^.2105t where t is the number of decades past 1900. The discrepency could be a larger percentage increase between 1900 and 1910 than other decades. B. Using 1970 and 1980 gives a different percentage of increase at 11.82%. The equation now changes to: 203 e^.1182t with t = # of decades so the population prediction is 289.4 mil in 2000 and 325.7 mil. in 2010
Answered by Rusty - Sun Apr 6 20:09:12 2008
exponential models...help please 10 points?
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. Year Population 1900 76 1910 92 1920 106 1930 123 1940 131 1950 150 1960 179 1970 203 1980 227 1990 250 2000 275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1960 and 1970 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million i have no idea how to do this please help
Asked by Ashleigh G - Fri Apr 24 16:00:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. a.) 513 million b.) 296 million
Answered by bob - Fri Apr 24 16:06:52 2009
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. Year Population 1900 76 1910 92 1920 106 1930 123 1940 131 1950 150 1960 179 1970 203 1980 227 1990 250 2000 275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1960 and 1970 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) = ? million i have no idea how to do this please help
Asked by Ashleigh G - Fri Apr 24 16:00:26 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. a.) 513 million b.) 296 million
Answered by bob - Fri Apr 24 16:06:52 2009
Calculus word problem?
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) =___million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1980 and 1990 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) =___million
Asked by Mlukm - Wed May 20 23:39:25 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. don't see why this is a calc problem Oo. Exponential model is A = Pe^(rt) P is how much you start with. A is howmuch you end up with. and t is the amount of time passed. So from 1900 to 1910, the amount of time passed is 10 years, and 76 is how much you start with (P) 92 is how much you end with (A) so you have 92 = 76*e^(r*10) Solve this for r. (I'm too lazy.) and then replace that value of r into your equation. Now you have the power to predict what the population will be in 2000. Just use the started population in 1910 as you (A) and leave P as your variable. Use t = 90, (90 years from 1910 to 2000) and the rate you found in the first problem. The only variable you should have left is P, which is your prediction… [cont.]
Answered by Ken - Wed May 20 23:49:03 2009
Q. The table gives the population of the United States, in millions, for the years 1900-2000. YearPopulation 190076 191092 1920106 1930123 1940131 1950150 1960179 1970203 1980227 1990250 2000275 (a) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1900 and 1910 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) =___million (b) Use the exponential model and the census figures for 1980 and 1990 to predict the population in 2000. P(2000) =___million
Asked by Mlukm - Wed May 20 23:39:25 2009 - - 1 Answers - 0 Comments
A. don't see why this is a calc problem Oo. Exponential model is A = Pe^(rt) P is how much you start with. A is howmuch you end up with. and t is the amount of time passed. So from 1900 to 1910, the amount of time passed is 10 years, and 76 is how much you start with (P) 92 is how much you end with (A) so you have 92 = 76*e^(r*10) Solve this for r. (I'm too lazy.) and then replace that value of r into your equation. Now you have the power to predict what the population will be in 2000. Just use the started population in 1910 as you (A) and leave P as your variable. Use t = 90, (90 years from 1910 to 2000) and the rate you found in the first problem. The only variable you should have left is P, which is your prediction… [cont.]
Answered by Ken - Wed May 20 23:49:03 2009
From Yahoo Answer Search: '1950 United States Census'
Wed Dec 9 09:38:41 2009 [ refresh local cache ]
[Hide]▼
news.google.com
Wall Street Journal
Since the second quarter of 2006, housing values across the United States have fallen by one third. Over a million homes were lost to foreclosure nationwide ...
and more »
ac.wwu.edu
702px x 923px | 70.80kB
[source page]
Births in Entire USA Population Pyramid Comparison of 1990 to 2000 from census data Dynamic pyramid for United states 1950 2050
[Hide]▲
