Academic Integrity: tutoring, explanations, and feedback — we don’t complete graded work or submit on a student’s behalf.

#3) Use computer software packages, such as Excel, to solve this problem. Consid

ID: 3367261 • Letter: #

Question

#3) Use computer software packages, such as Excel, to solve this problem.

Consider the following data for 15 golfers on the LPGA in 2014. Provided is their money Earned during the year, the frequency they hit the Green in Regulation, and their consensus putting ability as voted on by their peers (grade was either given to be "Good" or "Poor").

Player

Earnings ($)

Greens in Reg.

Putter

Annika Sorenstam

2,588,240

0.772

Good

Paula Creamer

1,531,780

0.727

Good

Cristie Kerr

1,360,941

0.722

Good

Lorena Ochoa

1,201,786

0.697

Good

Jeong Jang

1,131,986

0.710

Poor

Natalie Gulbis

1,010,154

0.709

Poor

Meena Lee

870,182

0.686

Poor

Hee-Won Han

856,364

0.707

Good

Gloria Park

842,349

0.700

Poor

Catriona Matthew

776,924

0.696

Good

Candie Kung

753,959

0.702

Poor

Marisa Baena

744,679

0.684

Poor

Birdie Kim

715,006

0.679

Poor

Soo-Yun Kang

710,710

0.631

Good

Lorie Kane

698,763

0.718

Poor

Convert the Categorical Variable (Putter) into a numerical variable and develop an estimated regression equation that can be used to predict a player's Earnings for the season based their green in regulation frequency and their putting ability.

What is the p-value for the categorical variable Putter? Round to 3 decimals.

Is the Putter variable significantly adding to the model at the ? = 0.05 level?

What is the difference in Earnings between a Good putter and Poor putter, assuming their green in regulation frequencies are held constant? Round to the nearest dollar.

In 2014, golfer Stacy Lewis hit the green 75.8% of the time and was considered by her peers to be a Poor putter, however she made $2,539,039 in earnings. Would you consider that amount unusual? Use Excel to create a 95% Prediction Interval for that golfer’s expected earnings based on her statistics and compare that to her actual amount $2,539,039 to support your answer.

Player

Earnings ($)

Greens in Reg.

Putter

Annika Sorenstam

2,588,240

0.772

Good

Paula Creamer

1,531,780

0.727

Good

Cristie Kerr

1,360,941

0.722

Good

Lorena Ochoa

1,201,786

0.697

Good

Jeong Jang

1,131,986

0.710

Poor

Natalie Gulbis

1,010,154

0.709

Poor

Meena Lee

870,182

0.686

Poor

Hee-Won Han

856,364

0.707

Good

Gloria Park

842,349

0.700

Poor

Catriona Matthew

776,924

0.696

Good

Candie Kung

753,959

0.702

Poor

Marisa Baena

744,679

0.684

Poor

Birdie Kim

715,006

0.679

Poor

Soo-Yun Kang

710,710

0.631

Good

Lorie Kane

698,763

0.718

Poor

Explanation / Answer

Let use assume that the Categorical Variable (Goood, Poor) converted into a numerical variable (1,0), then, the data is change in numerical data. Using excel to solve this

The estiamted regression model is

Earnings = -7514248+11968694*Greens+336786.9*Putter

the p-value for the categorical variable Putter is 0.042064

Yes, the Putter variable is significantly adding to the model at the 0.05 level becuase the p-value is less than 0.05.

The difference in Earnings between a Good putter and Poor putter is 336786.9

If Green is 75.8% with poor putter, then earning is

Earnings = -7514248+11968694*0.758+336786.9*0 =$15,580,22

Yes the amount is given unusual

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.849573 R Square 0.721774 Adjusted R Square 0.675403 Standard Error 282631.6 Observations 15 ANOVA df SS MS F Significance F Regression 2 2.49E+12 1.24E+12 15.56521 0.000464 Residual 12 9.59E+11 7.99E+10 Total 14 3.45E+12 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Intercept -7514248 1787962 -4.20269 0.001226 -1.1E+07 -3618613 Greens 11968694 2555716 4.683107 0.000529 6400266 17537121 Putter 336786.9 148044.9 2.274897 0.042064 14224.71 659349.1