Buchanan, Butlin, Galentine 0

All You Can Eat?

Weight V.S Slices of Pizza Eaten in One
Sitting
Sidney R. Buchanan, Kayla Butlin, Devan Galentine

Buchanan, Butlin, Galentine 1

Sidney Buchanan, Kayla Butlin, Devan Galentine

Probability and Statistics II
Mr. John McDermott
13 December 2014
All You Can Eat?
Weight V.S Pizza Slices Eaten in One Sitting

The project entitled All You Can Eat? was conducted as a sample survey intended to
discover whether an individuals weight influenced the quantity of pizza slices they could eat in a
single sitting. The hypothesis stated specifically As the weight of a person increases the amount
of pizza slices that a person eats in a sitting will increase with a strong, positive, and linear
relationship. Once the data was successfully collected, the line of regression was found and the
correlation, or the direction and strength of a straight line relationship between two quantitative
variables, was calculated. This is a synopsis of All You Can Eat?.
The data set for the project consisted of both an explanatory variable and a response
variable. The explanatory variable was the weight of an individual in pounds. This, if the
hypothesis was correct, would influence how much pizza he or she ate as the response variable.
The data set had a population of all the authors friends and family. The sample consisted of the
twenty-five friends and family members whom were asked. After determining who the sample
was to be the authors collected their data.
The data is as follows:

Weight to Pizza Slices Correlation

Weight(lbs.)

Pizza Slices

105

150

110

150

81

163

130

115

180

235

250

225

170

205

175

175

142

205

199

115

155

145

210

132

130

Buchanan, Butlin, Galentine 2

Buchanan, Butlin, Galentine 3

The value of r (the correlation) is the direction and strength of a straight line relationship
between two quantitative variables. The value of r in this case is 0.114. This shows that there is a
positive relationship between the two values. The value of r proves only half of the hypothesis.
That as an individuals weight goes up the amount of pizza slices eaten in a single sitting will
also increase. However it also disproves part of the hypothesis, because it shows that the
relationship is weak. It was hypothesized to be strong. The r value also allows for the r2 value to
be 1.3%. This shows that the prediction will not be very reliable because it only explains an
extremely small portion of the variation for the line of regression.
As a prediction, the authors used an explanatory value of 300lbs. and solved for their
response variable. The following is the calculations:

Y= 0.004x+2.846
X=300lbs
Y=0.004(300) +.2.486
Y=1.2+2.846
Y=4.046
From this they were able to predict that if someone weighs 300lbs., then he or she will eat around
four slices of pizza. This is predicted with a 1.3% accuracy. Which means it is not a valid
prediction.
It can be assumed that the reason for a lack of accuracy is due to lurking variables. In the
aforementioned case, there are two specific instances that come to mind. The first lurking
variable being the productivity of an individuals metabolism. The faster the persons the
metabolism the less they weigh and the more they can eat without gaining weight. This could be
the reason why there were many pieces of data that just didnt seem to fit. Another lurking
variable could be the amount one exercises. This effects how much muscle mass is more dense
than fat-- thus effecting the weight of an individual. This also can influence the amount of
calories someone can take in. Ultimately, there are many lurking variables to this experiment.
The hypothesis of the survey was As the weight of a person increases the amount of
pizza slices that a person eats in a sitting will increase with a strong, positive, and linear
relationship. This has been proven incorrect. While the relationship was positive it did not have

Buchanan, Butlin, Galentine 4

a strong relationship. Because of the weak relationship it is very possible that the relationship is
not linear at all. It was the exact opposite having a weak relationship of 0.114. In this particular
situation, it could be a number of lurking variables that caused this.

Works Cited
Bennett, Erin. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Black, Autumn. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Buchanan, Sidney. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Bursee, Robert. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Butlin, Kayla. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.

Buchanan, Butlin, Galentine 5

Butlin, Tammy. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.

Confer, Elizabeth. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Craig, Shasta. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Galentine, Devan. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Galentine, Linda. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Gibson, Shannon. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Gralln, Mr. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Hyde, Kacey-Jo. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Kearney, Brennan. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Livingston, Mike. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Notto, Jeff. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Porter, Matt. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Risinger, Emilee. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Royer, Kol. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Rudd, Adam. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Smith, Jennifer. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Suchaysik, Nathan. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Wells, Jaycee. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Williams, Ean. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.
Williams, Traczyk. Personal interview. 5 Dec. 2014.