Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Sample Data:
Participan
t
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16*
17
Height (cm)
174.5
182
178.5
179
166
163
183.5
178
181
189
178
160
185.25
186
166
179
171
30.5
30.5
31
30
30
25.5
30
30
30.5
32
29.75
24
28.75
30.5
27
31
26.5
57.7
62.9
54.5
61.7
48.7
47.8
53
53.2
68.5
58.25
48
47.9
62.7
55
55
74.6
66.5
Then, we tested the linear relationship between the height of the subjects and their stride length
by finding r and r2:
r = 0.4762347353
r2 = 0.2267995231
This is evidence that there is weak correlation between the height and stride length of the
subjects because r falls between 0.25 and 0.49, and that approximately 22.68% of the variation is
explained by the relationship between height and stride length.
Next, we had to run a hypothesis test for both correlations to test to see if a significant linear
correlation existed. We ran both of these tests at a level of significance of 0.1. We ran the
hypothesis test for height vs. shoe length first:
H o : =0
H a : 0
t c =invT ( .05, 14 ) =1.761310111
t=
1r 2
n2
.7988121144
=4.968380463
1.6381007941
162
We reject H0, meaning that there is enough evidence to suggest significant linear correlation.
Then, we ran the hypothesis test for height vs. stride length:
H o : =0
H a : 0
t c =invT ( .05, 14 ) =1.761310111
t=
1r 2
n2
.4762347353
=2.026464638
1.2267995231
162
We reject H0, meaning that there is enough evidence to suggest significant linear correlation.
After learning that a significant linear correlation exists for both of the correlations, we used the
equations created from our sample to attempt to predict the suspects shoe size and stride length.
We used the equation for height vs. shoe length first because it had a stronger correlation. The
equation for the predicted y value for finding shoe length based off of height was:
^y =mx +b=0.2026309779 x6.566958183
We then plugged in the height for each of the suspects to figure out their predicted shoe length:
Penelope Paige:
Rex Chapman:
Dirty Dawg:
Based off of this information, we can say that Dirty Dawg is off of the list for suspects because
his predicted shoe length does not fall within the boundaries of 25 - 30 cm, which was the shoe
length found at the site of the crime.
Next, with the remaining suspects, we used the equation for height vs. stride length. The equation
for the predicted y value for finding their stride length based off of height was:
^y =mx +b=0.3638501318 x7.811266196
We then plugged in the height for the remaining suspects to figure out their predicted stride
length:
Penelope Paige:
Rex Chapman:
cm
Since Rex Chapmans predicted stride length was the closest to the stride length found on the
crime scene, we can conclude that he is the person guilty of this crime.
Finally, we inferred the final suspects height from their stride length, so now we have to run a
confidence interval for the data set to show how confident we are that the suspects actual height
would fall between the two given values:
^y =0.6233322549 ( 55.03292857 ) +141.181842=175.4856415
E=t c s e
2
n (x0 x )
1
1 16(55.0329285756.334375)
1+ +
=1.761310111 7.955286826 1+ +
=14.
2
2
n n
16
16 ( 51,445.8725 )(901.35)
x 2( x)
( ^y E , ^y + E ) =(161.0254833,189.9457997)
With 90% confidence, the suspected killers height of 172.72 cm falls within the range of
approximately 161.025 and 189.946 cm, so we can conclude that Rex Chapman is the killer of
Jonathan Wallace.
Conclusion:
As stated previously, we can conclude that the murderer is Rex Chapman, the rock guitarist. His
possible motive was that he accused Wallace of stealing profits from his hit single Walk it Off.
We can conclude this because using the predicted y value equations to find both the shoe length
and the stride length based off of the suspects height, we found that the suspects shoe and stride
length fell between the lengths found at the crime site. Once we determined Rex was the killer,
we created a confidence interval to prove that his height falls within the range of height.
There were a variety of possible errors that we may have performed while conducting our
research. One part of the data that could be skewed is the stride length. While testing a persons
stride, they may not have walked normally since they were aware that they were being tested.
Another possible error for our group is that we only measured a persons normal stride, not other
forms like running or tiptoeing. Since we were only left with unclear muddy footprints, it is
reasonable to assume that the murderer might not have had a normal walking pace when he
escaped the crime scene. Another error was that the data our group collected resulted in us not
being able to carry on with the investigation because we were getting reject H0 or not getting
values that fell in the range of the evidence found at the crime scene. Because of this, our team
used the stride length data from the other team. There was also the error that the predicted stride
lengths we found for the three suspects did not fall into the range of the stride length on the
crime scene. This could have happened because of incorrect calculations or testing methods. As a
result, we picked the suspect whose stride length was closest to the found range. A final error we
encountered was outliers in our set of data for stride lengths. There was one test subject, number
sixteen, whose stride length greatly exceeded the average set by others, which also could have
skewed the data. In response to this possible error, we removed this test subject from the data
list.