Thread: average linear function

Here is my question and answer. Let me know if I am anywhere close people.

The average yearly earnings for males holding a bachelors degree is given by the linear function: f(x) = 828x + 32,134 where x is the number of years since 1996 that a person graduated.

a) Find the average earnings for males receiving a bachelor's degree in 1998

f(x)=828 (2) + 32,134
f(x)=1656 + 32,134
f(x)=33,790 average earnings

b) Predict the average earnings for males receiving a bachelor's degree in 2005

f(x)=828 (9) + 32,134
f(x)=7452 + 32,134
f(x)=39,586 average earnings

c) Predict the first year that the average earnings for a male with a bachelors degree will be greater than 50,000

50,000=828(x) +32,134

50,000-32,134=828(x)
17,866=828(x)
x=21.57

In 2018 the Average earning for a male with a bachelors degree will be greater than 50,000.

d) Find and interpret the slope of the equation.
m=828 y=mx+b

The average yearly earnings for males with a bachelors degree increases $828 dollars every 1 year.

e) Find and interpret the y-intercept of the equation.

b=32,134 y=mx+b

The average yearly earnings for males with a bachelors degree in 1996 was $32,134.

A+

Originally Posted by jccurtis

Here is my question and answer. Let me know if I am anywhere close people.

The average yearly earnings for males holding a bachelors degree is given by the linear function: f(x) = 828x + 32,134 where x is the number of years since 1996 that a person graduated.

a) Find the average earnings for males receiving a bachelor's degree in 1998

f(x)=828 (2) + 32,134
f(x)=1656 + 32,134
f(x)=33,790 average earnings

b) Predict the average earnings for males receiving a bachelor's degree in 2005

f(x)=828 (9) + 32,134
f(x)=7452 + 32,134
f(x)=39,586 average earnings

There is something wrong with the model or your interpretation. Someone
who graduated in 1998 should be earning now more than someone who
graduated in 2002 - on average, your model/interpretation results in
the relation between earnings and graduation year the other way around.


RonL

Originally Posted by CaptainBlack

There is something wrong with the model or your interpretation. Someone
who graduated in 1998 should be earning now more than someone who
graduated in 2002 - on average, your model/interpretation results in
the relation between earnings and graduation year the other way around.


RonL

Pffl! I was teaching kids that were projected to make more than twice my salary as a professor. That's just the way it works sometimes!

-Dan