Observed: City Republicans Democrats Independents Suburb Rural 126 61 38 71 93 69 19 14 27

Question: Is voting preference associated with region?

1. Calculate observed and expected matrices Expected Count: City Suburb Rural Republicans 93.82 72.97 58.20 Democrats 97.16 75.57 60.27 Independents 25.02 19.46 15.52 216 168 134 Observed Count: City Suburb Rural Republicans 126 61 38 Democrats 71 93 69 Independents 19 14 27 216 168 134 Expected Percent: City Republicans 43.44% Democrats 44.98% Independents 11.58% 100% Observed Percent: City Republicans 58.3% Democrats 32.9% Independents 8.8% 100%

225 233 60 518

225 233 60 518

2. Subtract observed and expected matrices Observed - Expected: City Suburb Rural Republicans 32.18 -11.97 -20.20 Democrats -26.16 17.43 8.73 Independents -6.02 -5.46 11.48

3. Square the differences City Suburb Rural Republicans 1035.40 143.35 408.23 Democrats 684.26 303.89 76.14 Independents 36.23 29.81 131.76

4. Standardize: Divide the squared values by the expected values 11.04 7.04 1.45 5. Sum the matrix calculated chi-squared value: 43.81 1.96 4.02 1.53 7.01 1.26 8.49

6. Find the critical value from the chi-square table using 0.5 significance and degrees of freedom defin d.f.: (3-1)*(3-1) = 2*2 = 4

critical value from table:

9.49

7. Compare the chi squared value and the citical value to make conclusion

Since chi-squared value (43.81) is greater than critical value (9.49), the matrices are NOT the same (i.e. there IS a relationship between voting and reg So we reject the null hypothesis of no association. Null hypothesis: Voting preference and region are NOT associated Alternative hypothesis: Voting preference and region ARE associated

Chi-squared formulas:

Suburb Rural 43.44% 43.44% 44.98% 44.98% 11.58% 11.58% 100% 100% Suburb Rural 36.3% 28.4% 55.4% 51.5% 8.3% 20.1% 100% 100%

ees of freedom defined by (row-1)*(column-1)

een voting and region).

ALTERNATIVE METHOD (use observed count matrix): City Repub. Democ. Indep. 126 71 19 216 0.33 0.10 0.03 1.08 Suburb 61 93 14 168 0.10 0.22 0.02 0.08 Rural 38 69 27 134 0.05 0.15 0.09 518 43.81 225 233 60 518

Are trips and income related? Average Household Income Low Average High 1-5 258 138 80 Annual 40 38 24 Out-of-village 6-10 Trips more than 10 43 31 132 341 207 236 341 207 236 341 207 236 0.41 0.05 0.03 0.19 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.36 1.21 0.21 161.44

476 102 206 784

161.43>9.49 so reject null hypothesis and conclude th

othesis and conclude that there IS a relationship between trips and income.

Rank (1=low) Is there a linear relationship between ranks of energy consumption and income? Per Per capita capita energy income Atlantic 1 1 Quebec 5 3 Ontario 4 4 Prairie 2 2 British C. 3 5

ption and income? there a linear relationship between ranks of moisture and temperature? Is

Moisture Temp. 47 35 28 27 44 66 60 75 73 45

21 18 9 25 27 38 33 48 49 32

mperature?

Rank (1=low) Per capita energy Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairie British C. 1 5 4 2 3 Per capita income 1 3 4 2 5

d 0 2 0 0 -2

d^2 0 4 0 0 4 8

For 5 Canadian Provinces

Rank of per capita income
6 5 4

Rank of Temperature

3 2 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6

12 10 8 6 4 2 2

Rank of per capita energy consumption

r=1-((6*8)/(5*(5^2-1)))

0.6

6*(d^2) r=1n(n^2-1) if n = # of pairs if n = # of pairs

Non-Parametric Conclusion: mild positive correlation between per capita energy and per capita income

critical value (from tab

Null hypothesis: there is no relationship between th

Alternative hypothesis: there is a linear relationship Two-tailed test: reject null hypothesis if r>0.648 r<-0.648 degrees of freedom = # of pairs

Moisture Temp. 47 35 28 27 44 66 60 75 73 45

21 18 9 25 27 38 33 48 49 32

Moisture Rank 6 3 2 1 4 8 7 10 9 5

Temp. Rank 3 2 1 4 5 8 7 9 10 6

d 3 1 1 -3 -1 0 0 1 -1 -1

d^2 9 1 1 9 1 0 0 1 1 1 24

Rank of Temperature

12 10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rank of Moisture

r=1-((6*24)/(10*(10^2-1)))

0.85

Non-Parametric Conclusion: strong positive correlation between per capita energy and per capita income

Parametric Conclusion: 0.855>0.648 so reject null hypothesis and conclude that there is a linear relationship between ranks of moisture and temperature df 10 critical value (from table) 0.65

no relationship between the ranks

here is a linear relationship between the ranks

and temperature

% of working % of persons population in aged 25+ managerial with college rank or tech jobs degrees rank jobs degrees Alaska 22.7 15.7 3 2 Arkansas 15.4 14.5 1 1 California 28.6 23.4 6 6 Georgia 34.1 31.1 8 11 Maine 32.3 26.5 7 7 Michigan 24.7 17.4 4 4 New Jersey 40.5 30.4 11 10 North Carolina 22.3 17.3 2 3 Oregon 35.5 29.8 9 8 Washington 27.7 22.9 5 5 New York 39.1 30.3 10 9

d 1 0 0 -3 0 0 1 -1 1 0 1

d^2 1 0 0 9 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 14

Rank of % adults with college degrees

For 11 U.S. States

12 10 8 6 4 2 2 4 6 8 10 12

Rank of % workers in management/tech

6*(d^2) r=1n(n^2-1) 0.94 >0.623 CONCLUSION: Reject the null hypothesis. There is a strong linear relationship between rank jobs and rank degrees.

nd rank degrees.

Moisture Temp. 47 21 35 18 28 9 27 25 44 27 66 38 60 33 75 48 73 49 45 32 500 300

x^2 2209 1225 784 729 1936 4356 3600 5625 5329 2025 27818

y^2 441 324 81 625 729 1444 1089 2304 2401 1024 10462

xy 987 630 252 675 1188 2508 1980 3600 3577 1440 16837

1837 53.08

0.91 38.24

Non-Parametric conclusion: r=0.905 so there is a strong positive correlation between moisture and temperature

Parametric conclusion: 0.905>0.632 so reject null hypothesis and conclude that there is a linear relationship between moisture and temp df 8 critical value (from table) 0.63

degrees of freedom = n-2, whe

Temperature

60 50 40 30 20 10 20 30 40 50 Moisture 60

d temperature

n moisture and temperature freedom = n-2, where n= # of pairs

50

60

70

80

oisture

% of working % of persons population in aged 25+ managerial with college or tech jobs degrees x^2 y^2 xy Alaska 22.7 15.7 515.29 246.49 356.39 Arkansas 15.4 14.5 237.16 210.25 223.3 California 28.6 23.4 817.96 547.56 669.24 Georgia 34.1 31.1 1162.81 967.21 1060.51 Maine 32.3 26.5 1043.29 702.25 855.95 Michigan 24.7 17.4 610.09 302.76 429.78 New Jersey 40.5 30.4 1640.25 924.16 1231.2 North Carolina 22.3 17.3 497.29 299.29 385.79 Oregon 35.5 29.8 1260.25 888.04 1057.9 Washington 27.7 22.9 767.29 524.41 634.33 New York 39.1 30.3 1528.81 918.09 1184.73 TOTAL 322.9 259.3 10080.49 6530.51 8089.12

Non-Parametric conclusion: r=0.952 so there is a strong correlation between % workers in management/tech and %

Parametric conclusion: 0.952>0.602 so reject null hypothesis and conclude that there is a linear relationship between % workers in management/tech an df 9 critical value (from table) 0.6

477.49 24.53 0.95

20.45
% adults with college degrees

F
35 30 25 20 15 10 10 15

rs in management/tech and % persons age 25+ with college degrees

rkers in management/tech and % persons age 25+ with college degrees degrees of freedom = n-2, where n= # of pairs

For 11 U.S. States

35 30 25 20 15 10 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 % workers in management/tech

% adults with college degrees