Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

- KJ4UTS

The percentage of all households in the United States that had a dog as a pet is give...

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions.

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this and **thousands** of other questions

- KJ4UTS

The percentage of all households in the United States that had a dog as a pet is give...

- chestercat

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- KJ4UTS

- KJ4UTS

- KJ4UTS

I got this to be my answer: y=-.802x+1632.889

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

- KJ4UTS

2. Use the regression equation from the previous problem (with constants rounded to three decimal places) to estimate the percentage of households in the United States that had a dog for a pet in 1989 and in 1999. Round the answers to one decimal place. Do not include a percent sign.
For 1989 I got 37.7 as my answer
For 1999 I got 29.7 as my answer
I’m not sure if my answers are correct and I know if the equation is not right then the other answers will be wrong.

- anonymous

yeah check the years again. Should be y = -0.8022x + 42.215

- KJ4UTS

Ok I see I was probably thinking at the time to put the year for -0.8022 would be -0.802 to be three decimal places. Then do I just plug in 1989 and 1999 into that formula?

- anonymous

your answers for B are right

- KJ4UTS

But for 1989 and 1999 I used the y=-.802x+1632.889 formula?

- anonymous

when you plugged in 1989 and 1999 into the "wrong" formula it worked because that formula used years.
To use the "right" formula you'd have to change them to 6 and 16 respectively. It will give you the same result

- KJ4UTS

Oh so I will still get 37.7 for 1989 and 29.7 for 1999?

- anonymous

right

- KJ4UTS

Ok I see thank you again :)

- anonymous

you're welcome

- KJ4UTS

@peachpi one more question, I plugged in 6 into -0.802(6) + 42.215 and got 37.4 and -0.802(16) + 42.215 and got 29.38 or 29.4 which I think may be the answers because I got 37.7 and 29.7 wrong. Also where does the 6 and 16 come from?

- anonymous

Yeah it is 37.4 for 1989 and 29.4 for 1999, I had my rounding on to the whole
using years since 1983, so
1989 - 1983 = 6
1999 - 1999 = 16

- KJ4UTS

Would that also be for the formula to y=-0.802x + 42.213 instead of .215?

- anonymous

no I got .215

- KJ4UTS

oh ok just wanted to check

- KJ4UTS

Thanks :)

- anonymous

you're welcome

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.