Margins travel with every percentage in this MT355 Unit 9 data analysis exercise, which compares price, pool and evening responses from 163 eligible adults against a 16-enrollment bar. Searches like "mt 355 unit 9 assignment example", "mt355 unit 9 sample" and "mt355 unit 9 example" land here.
What a finished MT355 Unit 9 data analysis exercise looks like
Six pages, five tables and one projection panel. Response figures come first: 731 of 2,940 households answered, 24.9 percent, and 163 respondents screened in as unable to swim a length. Table one compares enrollment likelihood across the three randomly assigned prices: top-two-box shares of 43.6, 33.3 and 18.5 percent, each with its margin, and a chi-square of 7.99 with a p value near 0.018. Table two compares pools: 37.1 percent near North against 24.2 near Riverside, chi-square 3.00, p about 0.084. Table three ranks evenings, Tuesday at 57.7 percent and Thursday at 50.9. Table four reports the panel's 38.0 percent without a margin. The projection panel converts stated likelihood into expected enrollments for each pool, set against the bar of 16.
How a MT355 Unit 9 example is structured
Response and eligibility come first because every later percentage rests on 163 people, and the reader needs that base before any comparison. Each comparison is tied to a Unit 2 sub-question and follows one pattern: the question, the test and why it suits two categorical variables, the result, and a sentence on what the result means for the decision. Pairwise tests follow the overall price test so the reader sees where the difference lies; no adjacent pair separates cleanly, while 148 against 188 does. The pool comparison is reported as suggestive rather than settled. Panel results sit in their own table, never pooled with the list, since the two samples answer different questions. The projection panel states its discount weights as assumptions, half of definitely and a tenth of probably, and reruns under stricter and looser weights.
163 people behind every figure
731 households answered and 163 respondents could not swim a length. Every percentage in the exercise uses that base or a subset of it.
Price matters, mostly at the top
Likelihood falls from 43.6 to 33.3 to 18.5 percent. Neither adjacent step clears the usual bar on its own; 148 against 188 does, at p near 0.005.
North ahead, not proven
37.1 percent near North and 24.2 near Riverside, p about 0.084. The gap is reported as a lead worth weighing, not a settled difference.
Two evenings stand out
Tuesday at 57.7 percent and Thursday at 50.9, with 10.4 percent saying no weekday evening works. The planned schedule already matches the leading pair.
From likelihood to enrollments
At 168 dollars, North projects about 38 enrollments and Riverside about 17.5 against a bar of 16. Under stricter weights Riverside falls to 12.8.
Where marks go in MT355 Unit 9
Restraint is the skill on trial here, and the classic failure is a report running every cross-tabulation the software offers, adding tables that answer no sub-question and burying the three that do. Graders then check whether margins travel with percentages: a 43.6 percent figure from 55 respondents carries about 13 points either way, and ignoring that invites overreading. Pooling panel and list respondents into one estimate mixes a census of families with an opt-in sample and loses method credit. Treating stated likelihood as enrollment, without any discount or with an unexplained one, overstates demand. A p value of 0.084 described as proof of a pool difference, or as proof of none, draws comment either way. Output pasted without interpretation earns little.
Get a MT355 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Bring whatever dataset or output came with the Unit 9 assignment, the sub-questions your study set, any software your section requires and the rubric. The exercise returns within 24-48h with each comparison tied to a decision, margins beside every percentage and any projection's assumptions stated plainly. A first custom sample is free.
MT355 Unit 9 questions, answered
Why not run every available comparison?
Because each extra table dilutes the ones that matter and raises the chance of a spurious result. The MT355 sample runs price, pool, evening and panel comparisons because each answers a sub-question from the brief. Age and household size were available and left in an appendix, since no decision depended on them. Graders in this unit typically reward that selectivity.
What is a top-two-box share?
The percentage of respondents choosing the two most positive options on a scale, here definitely would enroll and probably would enroll. It simplifies a five-point item into one figure that is easy to compare across groups. The sample reports it alongside the full distribution for the planned price, which shows how much of the share rests on probably rather than definitely.
How should stated intentions be converted into enrollments?
With discount weights stated as assumptions and tested for sensitivity, because people overstate what they will do. The sample counts half of definitely and a tenth of probably, then reruns with stricter and looser weights. North clears the bar under every version; Riverside does not, which is exactly the uncertainty the report needs to show. Your course text may suggest specific weights.