Post A (84 points): Pretend you are a guest lecturer for an undergraduate statistics course. Your objective is to explain (1) the difference between linear and logistic regression and (s) how to interpret linear and logistic regression coefficients. 1.Linear and Logistic Regression 1. Describe the characteristics of linear and logistic regression analyses. — 15 points 2. Provide examples of variables (include the level of measurement and variables for which data may actually be collected) that could be used for the dependent and independent variables of each regression type. Here’s an example (which means you cannot use this one). For linear regression, one would use ratio data from a variable such as body mass index (BMI) for the dependent variable and one could use nominal data from a variable such as gender for the independent variable. — 10 points 2. Interpretation 1. Explain the difference in how one would interpret simple linear and logistic regression analyses versus multiple linear and logistic regression analyses. — 20 points 2. Provide examples NOT given in the text of how to state null and alternative hypotheses for a linear regression analysis and a logistic regression analysis. — 10 points 3. Find an example of either the use of linear or logistic regression models in a research article in the Journal of Clinical Nursing from this calendar year. Post the citation for your peers using APA 6th Ed. format. Write a brief interpretation of the regression analysis presented in the article. Make sure the article really uses logistic or linear regression analyses. If you do a search using these terms and do not examine the methods and results, you may not find what you need. — 25 points 4. Discuss what you learned while preparing your text for this discussion. What did you already know? What was new to you? — 4 points.
To Be and Not To Be. In this book, Amin Maalouf, talks about a standout amongst the most imperative thoughts of the self; personality, in an investigation of verifiable and contemporary settings intending to uncover the misguided judgments and misuse of this method of acknowledgment. Regardless of whether national, religious, ethnical or other, personality has been the noticeable component and more than regularly the instigator of genuine changes on the planet. He analyzes how we have come to characterize ourselves and how certain methods of distinguishing proof can be unsafe. Each time character is resolved based on a solitary type of association, risk emerges, since this frequently prompts enthusiasm, whose different shades showed up all through history and keeps on existing in time. He credits this to an evil comprehension of character and a pointless jumpy endeavor of its safeguarding. The two primary topics of this work, religion and globalization, are end product treated. The creator gives an elucidation of how these two effect and frame each other. He tends to the matter of religion, by endeavoring to reason how it came to develop as the central advocate of personality in show times through a chain of inquiries, endeavoring to comprehend its huge widespread reemergence. He proposes a few answers, ascribing this marvel to the plunge of Communism and Marxism, for example, and how this is a response to their accentuation on secularism. The creator restricts the power of any sort of religious alliance and calls upon another component of affiliation. He advocates the detachment of chapel and personality, and confirms that this sort of recognizing alliance should be supplanted with a more humanistic one. He doesn't take a position against religion as such, for he by and by, as he clarifies, does not contradict religious affiliations and perceives the ceaseless noteworthiness of their tendency. Be that as it may, as said prior he censures the distressed propensity of contracting personality down to one type of affiliation. This relapse of character produces what he calls "executioner personalities". I accept there exists another, comparable type of relapse, which he didn't specify, one which I would call blame personalities .This is regular among individuals from verifiably or as of now misused gatherings, who have built up an inclination to manhandle such affiliations. A few Palestinians still do make a difference and get grants that were just appointed to their nationals at different higher instructive foundations, for example, when in certainty they can stand to pay for the entire understudy body. Another case of this would be the Jews repetitive reference to the Holocaust. This manhandle and control of history, I observe to be exceedingly vile and ill bred, for the main Jews that have all the privilege to allude to it I believe are the ones who survived it. Thus some African Americans utilize servitude or prejudice to legitimize their own disappointment, which is ridiculous for while racial segregation can be the situation in a few occasions, real imbalances that exist and continue are a result of class and absence of chance. At that point the creator swings to the issue of globalization, portraying the intensity of its scattering nature. In this dialog, he clarifies that the explanation behind the reemergence of religion lies in its capacity to satisfy two of the most essential human desires, the need of having a place and that of otherworldliness. In the meantime, he contends that in view of this religion is being attributed as the antitoxin to globalization. The creator displays an extremely stable investigation of religion's climb. In any case, his judgment of the power of its affiliations shows up just silly, for religion, such as everything else, has its furthest points, fluctuating from obsession to lack of care. It is these that stain its name, and it is these that ought to be censured. Despite the fact that I do recognize Maalouf's position and his endeavor to achieve a considerably more significant and exhaustive connection of affiliation, for example, humankind, regardless I do discover it rather hopeful, relatively idealistic. For despite the fact that it is the main basic characteristic over the globe, mankind has only here and there prevailing with regards to joining countries - history is a careful observer of that. Disregarding its noteworthiness, individuals have never treated humankind with high respects. I can't think about a reason that would rouse them to recognize it now. I do concur that this human idea Maalouf proposes would be an extreme worldwide ecstasy, yet I don't imagine that the world is prepared for it, given the condition of mayhem it is in now because of political frameworks, materialistic ideas or essentially lack of care. This is decisively why I believe that religion, when taken for what it truly is, instead of an arrangement of overbearing redid translations, would fill in as a flat out unifier, which ever religion it may well be - I am no fan myself to express that my confidence is the genuine one. We don't need to all attribute to a similar one (while that would be perfect, I am looking to be sensible). I recognize what confidence can do to one's view of life, and I don't think seeing the world through one's religion of decision transforms a man into a radical. Religion, when taken for what it truly is, is the faith in being a section or relating to an option that is greater than one's self, an arrangement of resilience and safeguarding of the most essential rights and poise. It can just delight the human in you and not the inverse. We are all needing that sort of touch to our spirits, generally our lives would resemble frameless pictures, dull and delicate. In tending to the substantial fight amongst character and globalization, the book shows how this conflict has always been ignored as an ordinary response to change and subsequently not in truth been considered important. It advocates that we as people should take this with genuine worry, since we are to the most part, subliminally occupied with it. Knowing our identity and where we stand is something we have come to take as clear, an origination that is shaken regularly when an occurrence happens, altogether adjusting things and putting us on sides we didn't know existed. It is this quite certain condition of cognizance that this paper is intending to mix. The creator clarifies that one's legacy can be partitioned into two kinds, vertical and even, and avows that our level legacies have more effect on us than we understand. In other words, when thought about impartially, one really has a larger number of shared traits with his peers than with his progenitors. This point merits mulling over profoundly, I accept, since we do, by tradition or refusal, tend to basically, if not solely, distinguish ourselves by our vertical legacies. This idea of legacy consolidates the genuine pith of character for individuals have a tendency to in many cases assume that personality is something settled that you get during childbirth and anything past that would be dealt with as treachery. Truth be told, it is the real inverse of that: character is a consistent condition of development. The vertical legacy is what is presented to us during childbirth and afterward everything else one experiences throughout his life will develop one's even legacy. These levels ought to be perceived and seen so one could have a strong and sound impression of himself for as Maalouf expressed; " it is important as of right now to attract thoughtfulness regarding the inlet that exists between what we are and what we think we are" (Maalouf p.86) In their judgment of globalization, individuals ought not overlook that like some other medium, it is characteristically unbiased and holds the possibility of both great and terrible in it. Any medium is in a condition of lack of bias until utilized, and henceforth any judgments of globalization would be unfounded as well as absurd also. The creator endeavors to exhibit the potential great that globalization can bring; he trusts that such a wonder can help make a general character. He clarifies this by declaring that the main essential element of personality that ought to be gotten a handle on is humankind and this is the main sort of connection that could never shrink the idea since it is the thing that we as a whole have in like manner, paying little mind to our disparities. Subsequently, I trust, the distrustful thought that by tolerating this unquestionable bond, individuals will chance winding up less of the people that they are is ludicrous. This particular kind of association isn't selective in nature and hence can't in any way, shape or form bring about any kind of misfortune.>GET ANSWER