ashaw/stats_class_2020
1
0
Fork 0
Code Activity

updating explanation of part I to address reasons for dropped observations

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
aaronshaw
2020-11-24 22:19:47 -06:00
parent 37924e44ba
commit c36ea661e7
3 changed files with 26 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

14
psets/pset8-worked_solution.rmd
View File

@@ -124,6 +124,20 @@ summary(
What do you know. That was it. The difference in $R^2$ is huge!
A little further digging (by Nick Vincent) revealed that these two outliers come from auctions where the Mario kart game was being sold as part of a bundle along with other games. You can look this up in the `title` field from the original dataset using the following block of code:
```{r}
data(mariokart)
mariokart %>%
filter(total_pr > 100) %>%
select(id, total_pr, title)
```
What do you make of the textbook authors' decision to drop the observations? Can you make a case for/against doing so? What seems like the right decision and the best way to handle this kind of situation?
## Interpret some results
The issues above notwithstanding, we can march ahead and interpret the results of the original model that I fit. Here are some general comments and some specifically focused on the `cond_new` and `stock_photo` variables: