From a567d5ef0b64c9bfb67e09bb8aaf82c6f4ed0675 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel <mail@danielluedecke.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:45:03 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] vig

---
 vignettes/bayes_factors.Rmd | 10 +++++++++-
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/vignettes/bayes_factors.Rmd b/vignettes/bayes_factors.Rmd
index 6f6fe5286..7d8d9b77e 100644
--- a/vignettes/bayes_factors.Rmd
+++ b/vignettes/bayes_factors.Rmd
@@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ posterior distribution, and estimate the HDI.
 
 In `bayestestR`, we can do this with the `weighted_posteriors()` function:
 
-```{r}
+```{r eval=FALSE}
 BMA_draws <- weighted_posteriors(mod, mod_carb, verbose = FALSE)
 
 BMA_hdi <- hdi(BMA_draws, ci = 0.95)
@@ -928,6 +928,14 @@ BMA_hdi
 
 plot(BMA_hdi)
 ```
+```{r echo=FALSE}
+BMA_draws <- weighted_posteriors(mod, mod_carb, verbose = FALSE)
+
+BMA_hdi <- hdi(BMA_draws, ci = 0.95)
+BMA_hdi
+
+plot(BMA_hdi, data = BMA_draws)
+```
 
 We can see that across both models under consideration, the posterior of the
 `carb` effect is almost equally weighted between the alternative model and the