# Fall 2022 End-of-Semester Exam Solutions for Data Analysis- Statistics, Brown University

Here are the exam questions and solutions for the Fall end-of-semester data analysis in the statistics paper done at Brown University. These questions will help you learn how to do your data analysis exams and succeed on them. You can contact us for help on your statistics exam through our email. You can also fill in an order form with your test details and we will avail a statistics expert for you.

## Exam Question 1: What is the current level of customer satisfaction and patronage with the various aspects of Tribeca Grill?

Exam Question 1a : Identify level of satisfaction with customer service, food, aesthetics, and atmosphere.
Exam Solution 1a :
There are several variables that store the level of customer satisfaction, grading customer service, food taste, aesthetics, and atmosphere. The following tables show the frequency distribution to these questions.
Q6 Rate Overall satisfaction

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Very unsatisfied
5
2.0
2.5
2.5
Unsatisfied
1
.4
.5
3.0
Neutral
38
15.5
19.3
22.3
Satisfied
91
37.1
46.2
68.5
Very satisfied
62
25.3
31.5
100.0
Total
197
80.4
100.0

Missing System
48
19.6

Total
245
100.0

Out of 245 respondents, data about overall satisfaction rating is given by only 197 respondents. The majority of the respondents respond being satisfied (91 respondents) or being very satisfied (62 respondents). 80.7% of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with the overall experience. Only 3% of respondents were very unsatisfied or unsatisfied with their experience at Tribeca Grill.

Q6 Rate Food taste

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Neutral
14
5.7
7.1
7.1
Satisfied
75
30.6
38.1
45.2
Very satisfied
108
44.1
54.8
100.0
Total
197
80.4
100.0

Missing System
48
19.6

Total
245
100.0

Out of 245 respondents, data about food rating is given by only 197 respondents. The majority of the respondents respond being satisfied (75 respondents) or being very satisfied (108 respondents). Only 7.1% of respondents rated their food taste experience as neutral at Tribeca Grill.

Q6 Rate Level of service

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Very unsatisfied
9
3.7
4.6
4.6
Unsatisfied
15
6.1
7.6
12.2
Neutral
41
16.7
20.8
33.0
Satisfied
71
29.0
36.0
69.0
Very satisfied
61
24.9
31.0
100.0
Total
197
80.4
100.0

Missing System
48
19.6

Total
245
100.0

From the 197 valid responses, 67% described themselves as satisfied or very satisfied with the level of customer service at Tribeca Grill.

Q6 Rate Interior appearance

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Very unsatisfied
11
4.5
5.6
5.6
Unsatisfied
26
10.6
13.2
18.8
Neutral
58
23.7
29.4
48.2
Satisfied
91
37.1
46.2
94.4
Very satisfied
11
4.5
5.6
100.0
Total
197
80.4
100.0

Missing System
48
19.6

Total
245
100.0

From the 197 valid responses, 51.8% described themselves as satisfied or very satisfied with the interior appearance at Tribeca Grill.

Q6 Rate Exterior appearance

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Very unsatisfied
6
2.4
3.0
3.0
Unsatisfied
32
13.1
16.2
19.3
Neutral
68
27.8
34.5
53.8
Satisfied
87
35.5
44.2
98.0
Very satisfied
4
1.6
2.0
100.0
Total
197
80.4
100.0

Missing System
48
19.6

Total
245
100.0

From the 197 valid responses, 46.2% described themselves as satisfied or very satisfied with the exterior appearance at Tribeca Grill.

Therefore, the metrics on which Tribeca Grill lacks right now, is the exterior appearance, as less than a majority of the respondents rated them to be satisfactory or very satisfactory.

Exam Question 1b : Request frequency of patronage of Tribeca Grill

Exam Solution 1b :

Descriptive Statistics

N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Std. Deviation
Q3 Number of noon (lunch) meals eaten in last 3 months.
197
0
25
4.97
4.445
Q3 Number of evening (dinner) meals eaten last 3 months
196
0
20
4.37
3.440
Valid N (listwise)
196

A respondent has had an average of 4.97 lunch meals and 4.37 dinner meals at Tribeca Grill in the last 3 months

Exam Question 1c : Solicit likes and dislikes with Tribeca Grill

Exam Solution 1c :

The following frequency table lists the disliked things about the restaurant

Q5 One thing you dislike about Tribeca Grill

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
61
24.9
24.9
24.9
appearance
2
.8
.8
25.7
Appearance
3
1.2
1.2
26.9
Appearance of the building
2
.8
.8
27.8
1
.4
.4
28.2
1
.4
.4
28.6
Bathrooms are awful
1
.4
.4
29.0
1
.4
.4
29.4
Building needs remodeling
1
.4
.4
29.8
Building's appearance
2
.8
.8
30.6
Dirty inside and outside
1
.4
.4
31.0
Distance
2
.8
.8
31.8
everything is great
1
.4
.4
32.2
Everything is great
1
.4
.4
32.7
exterior appear
1
.4
.4
33.1
2
.8
.8
33.9
Food is not always same
2
.8
.8
34.7
Food is not the best
1
.4
.4
35.1
Food Quantity
2
.8
.8
35.9
Horrible building
1
.4
.4
36.3
Horrible service
1
.4
.4
36.7
Inconsistent service
1
.4
.4
37.1
2
.8
.8
38.0
Inside needs remodeling
1
.4
.4
38.4
interior needs remod
1
.4
.4
38.8
Interior needs work
1
.4
.4
39.2
1
.4
.4
39.6
Location
9
3.7
3.7
43.3
Location
11
4.5
4.5
47.8
1
.4
.4
48.2
1
.4
.4
48.6
Need healthier options
2
.8
.8
49.4
Need Mexican food options
1
.4
.4
49.8
1
.4
.4
50.2
1
.4
.4
50.6
need more options
1
.4
.4
51.0
Need more variety
2
.8
.8
51.8
Need some chips and dip
1
.4
.4
52.2
Need some nice desserts
1
.4
.4
52.7
Need to design a new menu
1
.4
.4
53.1
needs painting
1
.4
.4
53.5
Needs remodeling
1
.4
.4
53.9
no appetizers
7
2.9
2.9
56.7
1
.4
.4
57.1
no Mexican dishes
1
.4
.4
57.6
No pies for dessert
1
.4
.4
58.0
not always clea
2
.8
.8
58.8
nothing for kid
1
.4
.4
59.2
Nothing for kids
2
.8
.8
60.0
Old furniture
1
.4
.4
60.4
Parking
9
3.7
3.7
64.1
Parking
13
5.3
5.3
69.4
1
.4
.4
69.8
2
.8
.8
70.6
poor service
1
.4
.4
71.0
Prices
6
2.4
2.4
73.5
Prices too high
1
.4
.4
73.9
Rude waiters
1
.4
.4
74.3
Service
2
.8
.8
75.1
Service inconsistent
3
1.2
1.2
76.3
1
.4
.4
76.7
Service is slow
2
.8
.8
77.6
service is too slow
1
.4
.4
78.0
Service slow
1
.4
.4
78.4
Service was horrible
1
.4
.4
78.8
Slow
1
.4
.4
79.2
Slow
6
2.4
2.4
81.6
Slow at times
2
.8
.8
82.4
slow service
2
.8
.8
83.3
slow sometimes
1
.4
.4
83.7
Slow sometimes
2
.8
.8
84.5
Some of the waiters
2
.8
.8
85.3
Sometimes its too slow
2
.8
.8
86.1
Stuff for kids to eat
1
.4
.4
86.5
Takes too long to get food
4
1.6
1.6
88.2
terrible service
1
.4
.4
88.6
1
.4
.4
89.0
Too much fried foods
1
.4
.4
89.4
too slow
4
1.6
1.6
91.0
Too slow
2
.8
.8
91.8
Variety
2
.8
.8
92.7
Wait is too long
1
.4
.4
93.1
Wait staff person was rude
1
.4
.4
93.5
wait stafff is rude
1
.4
.4
93.9
wait time
1
.4
.4
94.3
Wait time
10
4.1
4.1
98.4
waiting for foo
2
.8
.8
99.2
Waiting time
2
.8
.8
100.0
Total
245
100.0
100.0

61 respondents had things that they disliked about Tribeca Grill. The two main gripes of customers were related to location (20 respondents mentioned it) and parking (23 respondents experienced problems with parking).

The following frequency table lists the liked things about the restaurant

Q4 One thing you like best about Tribeca Grill

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
58
23.7
23.7
23.7
atmosphere
1
.4
.4
24.1
Atmosphere
6
2.4
2.4
26.5
attractive waitresses
1
.4
.4
26.9
Convenient
1
.4
.4
27.3
Food
16
6.5
6.5
33.9
Food
64
26.1
26.1
60.0
Food and location
1
.4
.4
60.4
food and service
1
.4
.4
60.8
Food and service is good
1
.4
.4
61.2
Food and waitresses
1
.4
.4
61.6
Food is fantastic
1
.4
.4
62.0
food is great
1
.4
.4
62.4
Food Taste
2
.8
.8
63.3
Food tastes good
3
1.2
1.2
64.5
Friendly place
1
.4
.4
64.9
Good chicken fingers
1
.4
.4
65.3
Good food
1
.4
.4
65.7
Good hamburgers
1
.4
.4
66.1
Good value
1
.4
.4
66.5
good variety of food
1
.4
.4
66.9
great desserts
1
.4
.4
67.3
great food
1
.4
.4
67.8
Great food
3
1.2
1.2
69.0
Great servcie
1
.4
.4
69.4
Great service
6
2.4
2.4
71.8
Like the service
1
.4
.4
72.2
Like variety of food
1
.4
.4
72.7
Location
1
.4
.4
73.1
Location
5
2.0
2.0
75.1
Love atmosphere
2
.8
.8
75.9
1
.4
.4
76.3
Nice variety of food
1
.4
.4
76.7
Nothing
1
.4
.4
77.1
Owner
1
.4
.4
77.6
Owner is wonderful
1
.4
.4
78.0
People
1
.4
.4
78.4
People are nice
2
.8
.8
79.2
People who work there
1
.4
.4
79.6
Pretty waitresses
1
.4
.4
80.0
Prices
9
3.7
3.7
83.7
Prices reasonable
1
.4
.4
84.1
Service
7
2.9
2.9
86.9
Service
23
9.4
9.4
96.3
Variety
1
.4
.4
96.7
Variety
2
.8
.8
97.6
Waiters
3
1.2
1.2
98.8
waitresses
1
.4
.4
99.2
Waitresses are great
1
.4
.4
99.6
waitstaff is great
1
.4
.4
100.0
Total 245 100.0 100.0

Food and service were the most liked things about Tribeca Grill.

## Exam Questions 2: Why have individuals not patronized Tribeca Grill?

2a : Determine reasons for not patronizing Tribeca Grill

Exam Solution :

Reasons for Not Eating at Tribeca Grill

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Location
15
6.1
31.3
31.3
Physical Appearance
3
1.2
6.3
37.5
Unaware
19
7.8
39.6
77.1
Don't Eat Out
2
.8
4.2
81.3
6
2.4
12.5
93.8
Other
3
1.2
6.3
100.0
Total
48
19.6
100.0

Missing System
197
80.4

Total
245
100.0

There are 48 responses as to why the survey participants don’t eat at Tribeca Grill. The largest contributor to that, is consumer being unaware of the restaurant, followed by location, and bad food (12.5% of responses).

How far do you live from Tribeca Grill?

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid 0-1 mile
35
14.3
17.8
17.8
1-2 miles
61
24.9
31.0
48.7
3-5 miles
38
15.5
19.3
68.0
6-9 miles
32
13.1
16.2
84.3
10-19 miles
17
6.9
8.6
92.9
20+ miles
14
5.7
7.1
100.0
Total
197
80.4
100.0

Missing System
48
19.6

Total
245
100.0

Data shows that 68% of respondents live within 5 miles of the restaurant.

## Exam Question 3: How has the addition of a new competitor down the street impacted Grill’s customer base?

Exam Solution 3a: Determine attitude toward new competitor in relation to Tribeca Grill

Q10 How has the opening of Fisherman's Paradise affected patronage of Tribeca Grill

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Quit eating at Lakeside Grill
6
2.4
3.2
3.2
Eat less at Lakeside Grill
42
17.1
22.3
25.5
Eat about the same at Lakeside Grill
114
46.5
60.6
86.2
Eat more at Lakeside Grill
26
10.6
13.8
100.0
Total
188
76.7
100.0

Missing System
57
23.3

Total
245
100.0

The opening of the new restaurant has led to a small but significant shift away from dining at Tribeca Grill. There are 25.5% of respondents who have said that they would either quit eating at Tribeca or eat less than Tribeca after the opening of Fisherman’s Paradise, compared to 13.8% who informed that they would eat more at Tribeca Grill. However, the majority (60.6%) opine that they would eat about the same at Tribeca Grill.

Q9 Compared to Tribeca Grill, how would you rate Fisherman's Paradise?

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Much worse
2
.8
1.1
1.1
Worse
30
12.2
16.4
17.5
84
34.3
45.9
63.4
Better
57
23.3
31.1
94.5
Much better
10
4.1
5.5
100.0
Total
183
74.7
100.0

Missing System
62
25.3

Total
245
100.0

Ratings wise, 45.9% rate Tribeca Grill and Fisherman’s Paradise the same, while 16.4% rate Fisherman’s Paradise to be worse or much worse than Tribeca Grill and 36.6% rate Fisherman’s Paradise to be better or much better than Tribeca Grill.

Therefore, more people rate Fisherman’s Paradise higher than Tribeca Grill, and more people are willing to dine less frequently at Tribeca Grill following the opening of Fisherman’s Paradise

Exam Question 3b: Determine if frequency of patronage of Tribeca Grill declined

Exam Solution:

Q10 How has the opening of Fisherman's Paradise affected patronage of Tribeca Grill

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Quit eating at Lakeside Grill
6
2.4
3.2
3.2
Eat less at Lakeside Grill
42
17.1
22.3
25.5
Eat about the same at Lakeside Grill
114
46.5
60.6
86.2
Eat more at Lakeside Grill
26
10.6
13.8
100.0
Total
188
76.7
100.0

Missing System
57
23.3

Total
245
100.0

The opening of the new restaurant has led to a small but significant shift away from dining at Tribeca Grill. There are 25.5% of respondents who have said that they would either quit eating at Tribeca, or eat less than Tribeca after the opening of Fisherman’s Paradise, compared to 13.8% who informed that they would eat more at Tribeca Grill. However, the majority (60.6%) opine that they would eat about the same at Tribeca Grill.

## Exam Question 4: Would changing Tribeca Grill’s menu, advertising, and/or promotional practice increase sales?

Exam Question 4a: Solicit attitude toward new menu items

Exam Solution

The dataset captures the response of the respondents to proposed changes in the menus such as introduction of mini-deserts, free bread before meal, half-portions of meals, introduction of healthier goods, kids’ menus, and lower prices & smaller portions.

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
39
15.9
20.1
20.1
not important
43
17.6
22.2
42.3
Neutral
29
11.8
14.9
57.2
Important
39
15.9
20.1
77.3
Very important
44
18.0
22.7
100.0
Total
194
79.2
100.0

Missing System
51
20.8

Total
245
100.0

42.8% of respondents regarded introduction of new mini-deserts as important or very important.

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
10
4.1
5.2
5.2
not important
26
10.6
13.4
18.6
Neutral
14
5.7
7.2
25.8
Important
45
18.4
23.2
49.0
Very important
99
40.4
51.0
100.0
Total
194
79.2
100.0

Missing System
51
20.8

Total
245
100.0

74.2% of respondents regarded introduction of free bread before meal as important or very important.

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
44
18.0
22.9
22.9
not important
34
13.9
17.7
40.6
Neutral
17
6.9
8.9
49.5
Important
48
19.6
25.0
74.5
Very important
49
20.0
25.5
100.0
Total
192
78.4
100.0

Missing System
53
21.6

Total
245
100.0

50.5% of respondents regarded introduction of half-portion of meals as important or very important.

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
14
5.7
7.2
7.2
not important
24
9.8
12.3
19.5
Neutral
19
7.8
9.7
29.2
Important
56
22.9
28.7
57.9
Very important
82
33.5
42.1
100.0
Total
195
79.6
100.0

Missing System
50
20.4

Total
245
100.0

70.8% of respondents regarded introduction of healthier foods as important or very important.

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
81
33.1
41.8
41.8
not important
53
21.6
27.3
69.1
Neutral
19
7.8
9.8
78.9
Important
19
7.8
9.8
88.7
Very important
22
9.0
11.3
100.0
Total
194
79.2
100.0

Missing System
51
20.8

Total
245
100.0

21.1% of respondents regarded introduction of kids’ menus as important or very important.

From these analyses, we see that giving out free bread before meals, and addition of healthier menu items are the best ways to address any changes to menus, as a large majority of customers regard them as important or very important.

Exam Question 4b: Determine the impact of advertising on patronage decision

Exam Solution 4b:

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
39
15.9
20.3
20.3
not important
44
18.0
22.9
43.2
Neutral
56
22.9
29.2
72.4
Important
29
11.8
15.1
87.5
Very important
24
9.8
12.5
100.0
Total
192
78.4
100.0

Missing System
53
21.6

Total
245
100.0

Only 27.6% of respondents regard the radio as important or very important.

FREQUENCY
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
14
5.7
7.3
7.3
not important
32
13.1
16.7
24.0
Neutral
49
20.0
25.5
49.5
Important
50
20.4
26.0
75.5
Very important
47
19.2
24.5
100.0
Total
192
78.4
100.0

Missing System
53
21.6

Total
245
100.0

50.5% of respondents regard the radio as important or very important.

FREQUENCY

Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
70
28.6
36.6
36.6
not important
44
18.0
23.0
59.7
Neutral
44
18.0
23.0
82.7
Important
17
6.9
8.9
91.6
Very important
16
6.5
8.4
100.0
Total
191
78.0
100.0

Missing System
54
22.0

Total
245
100.0

Of the total respondents, only 17.3% respondents regard newspaper ads as important or very important.

Therefore, of the 3 types of advertising media, only TV advertising was regarded by a majority of respondents as important or very important.

Exam Question 3c: Identify promotions that may influence patronage decisions

Exam Solution 3c :

Coupons, offering lower prices & smaller lunch portions and price off meals at various times were the different types of promotions proposed in the dataset.

Q11 Offer lower prices and smaller portions for lunch

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
14
5.7
7.4
7.4
not important
37
15.1
19.7
27.1
Neutral
13
5.3
6.9
34.0
Important
47
19.2
25.0
59.0
Very important
77
31.4
41.0
100.0
Total
188
76.7
100.0

Missing System
57
23.3

Total
245
100.0

66.0% of respondents regarded lowering of prices and introducing smaller portions for lunch as important or very important.

Q12 Coupons

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
52
21.2
26.9
26.9
not important
27
11.0
14.0
40.9
Neutral
31
12.7
16.1
57.0
Important
29
11.8
15.0
72.0
Very important
54
22.0
28.0
100.0
Total
193
78.8
100.0

Missing System
52
21.2

Total
245
100.0

43.0% of respondents regarded coupons as important or very important.

Q12 Price-off meals at various times

Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid Not very important
9
3.7
4.6
4.6
not important
5
2.0
2.6
7.2
Neutral
14
5.7
7.2
14.4
Important
50
20.4
25.6
40.0
Very important
117
47.8
60.0
100.0
Total
195
79.6
100.0

Missing System
50
20.4

Total
245
100.0

85.6% of respondents regard the price off meals at various times as important or very important.

Therefore, comparing the consumer attitudes towards the different types of promotions, we see that the price of meals at various times is the most effective way of promotion, followed by lowering of prices and introducing smaller portions for lunch.

__

Survey questions appear to be comprehensive as they cover various aspects of the consumer’s attitudes towards Tribeca Grill, the influence of Fisherman’s Paradise opening up, changes in menu items, various promotion campaigns and ad campaigns

Q7 to 10 appear to be good questions, as they measure the impact of Fisherman’s Paradise and its impact on Tribeca Grill.