To accurately describe the shape of a residual plot based on a scatterplot, it's important to understand the relationship between the data points and the fitted line.
-
If the scatterplot shows a linear trend, the residual plot should ideally have points that are randomly scattered around the residual=0 line, indicating a good fit without any patterns.
-
If the scatterplot shows a clear curve or pattern (like a U-shape or an S-shape), then the residual plot would likely exhibit a pattern and not be randomly scattered.
Given the options you've provided, the most likely accurate descriptions of the residual plots based on common scatterplot shapes are:
- If the scatterplot demonstrates a linear relationship, you would expect the residuals to be scattered around the zero line.
- If there are defined patterns in the scatterplot, you may see clusters of residuals either above or below the zero line, depending on the nature of the relationship (e.g., concave up or down).
Thus, without specific information about the shape of the scatterplot, the options can be interpreted as follows:
- If there are two dots on or close to the residual=0 line, it suggests that there are two points where the prediction is accurate.
- If there are three dots below the line and three above, it indicates the model has a good balance, but some points still vary significantly from the fitted values.
- Five dots above the residual=0 line suggests a systematic under-prediction in the fitted model.
I would likely choose "There are three dots below the residual=0 line and three dots above" as it indicates variability in the residuals and typically indicates that the model isn't overly biased in one direction, assuming the scatterplot suggests such a distribution.
If the scatterplot was perfectly linear with no variance, you would choose the first option, but that's generally less common unless it's a perfect fit situation.