Statistics 382 R coding Data Analysis Report

Posted: January 20th, 2023

The goal of this assignment is to create a Data Analysis Report that analyze the data of the houses that were given in the houses_prices.xls file.
Include detailed comments on the entire program.

Create an R script file and set it up to create and html file
Read the csv file and create a data frame “data”, use any name you want for the variable that will hold the data Frame
Run the summary command for data and based on the results that you get give an overview of what is the most important information, anomalies, or interesting facts that you observe.
Create a Boxplot for the Taxes of the houses. Beautify the boxplot as much as you can ( Titles, colors etc…)
Run the quantile() command for quantitative data only to find the 10th percentile for each of those.
Calculate the standard deviation for each of the variables that are quantitative. Discuss what the standard deviation means for each of the variables.
Create a table using the table() command that enumerates the houses based on features, corner.
Repeat the process for features, Baths
Explain what are your observations.
Now, create a new data frame that includes only the columns PRICE and TAX, name this IRS and save it in a new CSV file locally in your computer ( use the write.csv command)
Also, create a new dataframe that includes only the houses that are located NOT in a corner. Save this in NOTCornerHouses and in a new CSV file locally in your computer ( use the write.csv command)
Consider only the NOTCornerHouses that have prices smaller than 2500
Using the NOTCornerHouses, create a histogram on the Prices and one on Taxes, ( Beautify) and explain your observations by reviewing the two histograms.

Submit, your R script and the two produced files IRS.csv and CornerHouses.csv
Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.