Question 1 – Option A Question 2 – Option D (0.227) Question 3 –

Question 1 – Option A
Question 2 – Option D (0.227)
Question 3 – Answer is 0.3925
Question 4 – EMV of doing nothing is 5000
Question 5 – Expand existing plant
Question 6 – tickets purchased should be 490 (actual answer same as 489.33 which was rounded up to
490)
Question 7 –
a) R2 value of 0.44 implies that 44% of the variation in the dependent variable (occupancy rate) can be
jointly accounted for by variation in the independent variables (amount spent on advertising &
beach location)
b) Yes, the advertising does not work well as it is decreasing the occupancy rate while it is meant to
increase the same.
c) Assuming other independent variable as constant, the occupancy rate of resorts near a beach is four
times that of the corresponding rate of resorts not located near a beach.
Question 8
I do not agree with the interpretation of the p value as put by the New York Times. The p value at 0.07
may not be significant if the significance level for the hypothesis test was assumed to be less than 7%.
However, it does imply that if consumption or non-consumption of low fat diet does not matter for the
population, then there is only a 7% chance for the sample data to validate the population stance. This
clearly would suggest that it is unlikely that breast cancer rate are not impacted by the type of fat diet
consumed.
Question 15
Yes, the EMV of appealing is greater than zero
Question 16
0.49 is the required probability
Question 17
$4,228,000 ( I am not sure whether $ sign has to be inserted or not.If the answer is to be entered in $
million then it is 4.228 million)