#### @hello

##### New Member
Hello, I'm looking for some help for questions that I couldn't answer myself. Can someone explain/help me with these questions please? Thank you
Question 4
In a recent article published in Administrative Science Quarterly, a top journal inmanagement, the authors argue that state ownership affects a firm’s innovation output through two underlying mechanisms. On the one hand, following an institutional logic,state ownership of a firm increases its R&D input. On the other hand, however, following anefficiency logic, state ownership reduces the efficiency at which the firm turns R&D inputinto innovation output (i.e. R&D efficiency).
Based on the above argumentation, how wouldthe authors hypothesize the effect of state ownership on the firm’s innovation output?
Note innovation output = R&D input × R&D efficiency. State ownership may range from 0%to 100%.

a. State ownership of a firm has a U-shaped effect (first decreasing and then increasing)on its innovation output.
b. State ownership of a firm has an inverted U-shaped effect (first increasing and thendecreasing) on its innovation output.
c. State ownership of a firm has a positive effect on its innovation output.
d. State ownership of a firm has a negative effect on its innovation output.

Question 5
If you predict that the dependent and independent variables do not move in parallel to eachother, then the appropriate null hypothesis is that the coefficient on the independentvariable should be:
a. 0
b. -1
c. +1
d. None of the other three options
An example of “move in parallel”: Y doubles when X doubles, or Y increases by 1% when Xgrows by 1%. Think about elasticity in Economics.

Question 8
You first run the following regression:
. sysuse auto.dta, clear
. generate lweight=log(weight)
. regress mpg lweight foreign
Then you test for heteroscedasticity:
. hettest lweight foreign

You obtain the following output:
Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity
Ho: Constant variance
Variables: lweight foreign
chi2(2) = 26.91
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
What is the null hypothesis being tested here?
a. There is heteroscedasticity in mpg conditional upon lweight and foreign.
b. The conditional variance of mpg given lweight and foreign is not constant.
c. mpg is homoscedastic conditional upon lweight and foreign.
d. lweight and foreign have constant variances at different levels of mpg.

Question 10 ( choose one only)
In Tutorial 3 slide 23, I show how to run an OLS regression that is equivalent to anova. Now suppose I run the following anova:
. webuse manuf, clear
. anova yield temp##chem##meth
Which OLS regression below is equivalent to the above anova?
a. regress yield i.temp i.chem i.meth
b. regress yield i.temp#i.chem i.temp#i.meth i.chem#i.meth
c. regress yield i.temp i.chem i.meth i.temp#i.chem i.temp#i.meth i.chem#i.meth
d. regress yield i.temp i.chem i.meth i.temp#i.chem i.temp#i.meth i.chem#i.methi.temp#i.chem#i.meth

#### spunky

##### Doesn't actually exist
Hello, I'm looking for some help for questions that I couldn't answer myself. Can someone explain/help me with these questions please? Thank you
Question 4
In a recent article published in Administrative Science Quarterly, a top journal inmanagement, the authors argue that state ownership affects a firm’s innovation output through two underlying mechanisms. On the one hand, following an institutional logic,state ownership of a firm increases its R&D input. On the other hand, however, following anefficiency logic, state ownership reduces the efficiency at which the firm turns R&D inputinto innovation output (i.e. R&D efficiency).
Based on the above argumentation, how wouldthe authors hypothesize the effect of state ownership on the firm’s innovation output?
Note innovation output = R&D input × R&D efficiency. State ownership may range from 0%to 100%.

a. State ownership of a firm has a U-shaped effect (first decreasing and then increasing)on its innovation output.
b. State ownership of a firm has an inverted U-shaped effect (first increasing and thendecreasing) on its innovation output.
c. State ownership of a firm has a positive effect on its innovation output.
d. State ownership of a firm has a negative effect on its innovation output.

Question 5
If you predict that the dependent and independent variables do not move in parallel to eachother, then the appropriate null hypothesis is that the coefficient on the independentvariable should be:
a. 0
b. -1
c. +1
d. None of the other three options
An example of “move in parallel”: Y doubles when X doubles, or Y increases by 1% when Xgrows by 1%. Think about elasticity in Economics.

Question 8
You first run the following regression:
. sysuse auto.dta, clear
. generate lweight=log(weight)
. regress mpg lweight foreign
Then you test for heteroscedasticity:
. hettest lweight foreign

You obtain the following output:
Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity
Ho: Constant variance
Variables: lweight foreign
chi2(2) = 26.91
Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
What is the null hypothesis being tested here?
a. There is heteroscedasticity in mpg conditional upon lweight and foreign.
b. The conditional variance of mpg given lweight and foreign is not constant.
c. mpg is homoscedastic conditional upon lweight and foreign.
d. lweight and foreign have constant variances at different levels of mpg.

Question 10 ( choose one only)
In Tutorial 3 slide 23, I show how to run an OLS regression that is equivalent to anova. Now suppose I run the following anova:
. webuse manuf, clear
. anova yield temp##chem##meth
Which OLS regression below is equivalent to the above anova?
a. regress yield i.temp i.chem i.meth
b. regress yield i.temp#i.chem i.temp#i.meth i.chem#i.meth
c. regress yield i.temp i.chem i.meth i.temp#i.chem i.temp#i.meth i.chem#i.meth
d. regress yield i.temp i.chem i.meth i.temp#i.chem i.temp#i.meth i.chem#i.methi.temp#i.chem#i.meth

This seems very relevant to these questions

Particularly to Question 10.

#### @hello

##### New Member
What do you think? I did all the other 20 questions on my own, meaning that I have worked on it. But that's fine. I already did it but thanks for your "help"

#### Karabiner

##### TS Contributor
I guess he might think the same as most of us - why don't your share your own thoughts aboute these questions first?
Supposedly you have some ideas how to solve them?

With kind regards

Karabiner

#### spunky

##### Doesn't actually exist
What do you think? I did all the other 20 questions on my own, meaning that I have worked on it. But that's fine. I already did it but thanks for your "help"
Perfect. That means my "help" had the intended effect.