In: Economics
| 
 total expenditures per year ($1,000s, averaged over groups of breweries of same capacity)  | 
capacity (1,000 bb1s) per year | 
| 195.22 | 1 | 
| 810.27 | 2 | 
| 591.78 | 3 | 
| 1,342.35 | 4 | 
| 1,915.61 | 5 | 
| 2,003.14 | 6 | 
| 1,727.58 | 7 | 
| 2,863.54 | 8 | 
| 884.61 | 9 | 
| 3,508.42 | 10 | 
| 1,216.58 | 11 | 
| 4,170.70 | 12 | 
| 3,831.40 | 13 | 
| 3,963.27 | 14 | 
| 5,409.94 | 15 | 
| 4,871.02 | 16 | 
| 5,532.12 | 17 | 
| 4,654.85 | 18 | 
| 4,008.82 | 19 | 
| 4,571.65 | 20 | 
| 4,459.94 | 21 | 
| 5,948.31 | 22 | 
| 4,774.38 | 23 | 
| 2,159.74 | 24 | 
| 3,690.03 | 25 | 
| 5,756.83 | 26 | 
| 3,980.78 | 27 | 
| 4,218.47 | 28 | 
| 4,816.53 | 29 | 
| 8,391.56 | 30 | 
| 8,542.18 | 31 | 
| 4,627.00 | 32 | 
| 9,564.62 | 33 | 
| 6,231.67 | 34 | 
| 2,902.75 | 35 | 
| 5,392.48 | 36 | 
| 2,991.46 | 37 | 
| 1,144.31 | 38 | 
| 1,660.64 | 39 | 
| 7,650.07 | 40 | 
| 2,752.20 | 41 | 
| 13,112.65 | 42 | 
| 13,652.02 | 43 | 
| 5,102.94 | 44 | 
| 10,290.01 | 45 | 
| 12,307.84 | 46 | 
| 6,235.05 | 47 | 
| 7,582.25 | 48 | 
| 6,344.05 | 49 | 
| 5,909.06 | 50 | 
| 13,162.89 | 51 | 
| 8,955.16 | 52 | 
| 15,875.48 | 53 | 
| 7,617.45 | 54 | 
| 4,553.70 | 55 | 
| 3,568.83 | 56 | 
| 20,227.45 | 57 | 
| 14,570.19 | 58 | 
| 5,826.64 | 59 | 
| 6,750.42 | 60 | 
| 8,385.15 | 61 | 
| 9,710.43 | 62 | 
| 13,921.87 | 63 | 
| 25,251.10 | 64 | 
| 16,335.71 | 65 | 
| 11,041.33 | 66 | 
| 24,352.56 | 67 | 
| 10,122.02 | 68 | 
| 10,518.31 | 69 | 
| 23,886.06 | 70 | 
| 19,895.86 | 71 | 
| 17,598.34 | 72 | 
| 28,384.11 | 73 | 
| 30,223.77 | 74 | 
| 22,292.95 | 75 | 
| 19,171.24 | 76 | 
| 25,677.27 | 77 | 
| 21,597.64 | 78 | 
| 38,039.96 | 79 | 
| 38,107.86 | 80 | 
| 27,894.94 | 81 | 
| 31,374.81 | 82 | 
| 35,944.08 | 83 | 
| 24,587.37 | 84 | 
| 25,887.29 | 85 | 
| 28,862.45 | 86 | 
| 39,225.46 | 87 | 
| 41,124.94 | 88 | 
| 33,463.49 | 89 | 
| 33,827.72 | 90 | 
| 31,207.26 | 91 | 
| 42,523.71 | 92 | 
| 51,865.68 | 93 | 
| 59,537.79 | 94 | 
| 41,635.65 | 95 | 
| 58,594.86 | 96 | 
| 44,490.04 | 97 | 
| 54,895.81 | 98 | 
| 68,593.77 | 99 | 
| 72,877.54 | 100 | 
Let us first plot the data as follows. We may observe that the output and cost have a non-linear relation. Hence, we may use higher order polynomial to estimate the cost function. Consider the following specification of the cost function to be estimated:
,
where 
 denotes capacity (1,000 bb1s) per year.

The regression results using excel can be presented below. The estimated resgression equation is:

As we may find, the linear, quadratic and cubic terms are statistically significant as their individual p-values are less than all conventional level of significance. Further, the terms are explaining more than 90% of variations in cost since the R-squared = 0.91. The overall regression is significant as evident by the p-value corresponding to the F-statistics. Hence, the above estimated cost function fits the data well.
