Question 509918
<font face="Times New Roman" size="+2">


By saying *[tex \Large r\ =\ 0], you are saying there is no correlation whatsoever between 10 students' scores in an intermediate Stat class as compared to 10 students' scores in an advanced Stat class.


Are the two truly independent of each other?  Wouldn't you say that the the smart ones that bubble to the top in elementary and intermediate statistics would very likely continue to be more successful than their peers in the more advanced classes?  Or looking at it the other way, what is the likelyhood that someone who is doing very well in advanced statistics is a person who struggled through the less difficult courses?  That sort of empirical "gut feel" correlation has been my experience in every high school and college mathematics program with which I have been associated.


If I were answering the question, I would say a) 0.7.


John
*[tex \LARGE e^{i\pi} + 1 = 0]
My calculator said it, I believe it, that settles it
<div style="text-align:center"><a href="http://outcampaign.org/" target="_blank"><img src="http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c116811/scarlet_A.png" border="0" alt="The Out Campaign: Scarlet Letter of Atheism" width="143" height="122" /></a></div>
</font>