Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

The following is a sample of 25 measurements:

(7, 6, 6, 11, 8, 9, 11, 9, 10, 8, 7, 7, 5, 9, 10, 7, 7, 7, 7, 9, 12, 10, 10, 8, 6)

a.Compute x, s2,, and sfor this sample.

b.Count the number of measurements in the intervals xbar ± s, xbar ± 2s, xbar ± 3s. Express each count as a percentage of the total number of measurements.

c.Compare the percentages found in part bto the percentages given by the Empirical Rule and Chebyshev’s Rule.

d.Calculate the range and use it to obtain a rough approximation for s. Does the result compare favorably with the actualvaluefor sfound in part a?

Short Answer

Expert verified

a. xbar = 8.24, s2 = 3.356, s = 1.83

b. 19, 76%

24, 96%

25, 100%

c. Follows the Empirical Rule

d. Range =6, s = 1.5

Step by step solution

01

Computing x bar, s2, s

x

(x-x¯)

(x-x¯)2

7

-1.24

1.5376

6

-2.24

5.0176

6

-2.24

5.0176

11

2.76

7.6176

8

-0.24

0.0576

9

0.76

0.5776

11

2.76

7.6176

9

0.76

0.5776

10

1.76

3.0976

8

-0.24

0.0576

7

-1.24

1.5376

7

-1.24

1.5376

5

-1.066

1.136

9

0.76

0.5776

10

1.76

3.0976

7

-1.24

1.5376

7

-1.24

1.5376

7

-1.24

1.5376

7

-1.24

1.5376

9

0.76

0.5776

12

3.76

14.1376

10

1.76

3.0976

10

1.76

3.0976

8

-0.24

0.0576

6

-2.24

5.0176

Sum=206

0

80.56

localid="1668425769647" Mean(x¯)=xn=20625=8.24Variance=(x-x¯)2n-1=80.5625-1=80.5624=3.356StandardDeviation=Variance=3.356=1.83

Therefore, xbar = 8.24, s2 = 3.356, s = 1.83.

02

Counting the number of measurements in various ranges

Minimum = 6

Maximum = 12

(x¯-s,x¯+s)

x¯=8.24s=1.83Lowerrange=x¯-s=8.24-1.83=6.41Upperrange=x¯+s=8.24+1.83=10.07

Now that we have our range, we will count the measurements that fall within this range to get the number of measurements in this range.

19 measurements fall in the range.

To get the percentage, we will have to divide the number of measurements in the range by the total measurements.

2425=0.760.76×100=76%

Therefore, 76% of our measurements fall in this range.

(x¯-2s,x¯+2s)

localid="1668425792067" x¯=8.24s=1.83Lowerrange=x¯-2s=8.24-2(1.83)=4.58Upperrange=x¯+2s=8.24+2(1.83)=11.9

To get the number of measurements in the range of 4.58 to 11.9, we will count the measurements within this range.

Twenty-four measurements fall in this range.

To get the percentage, we will have to divide the number of measurements in the range by the total measurements.

2425=0.960.96×100=96%

Therefore, 96% of our measurements fall in the 2 standard deviation range.

(x¯-3s,x¯+3s)

localid="1668425810731" x¯=8.24s=1.83Lowerrange=x¯-3s=8.24-3(1.83)=2.75Upperrange=x¯+2s=8.24+3(1.83)=13.73

Now that we have our range, we will count the measurements that fall within this range to get the number of measurements in this range.

All 25 measurements fall in this range.

To get the percentage, we will have to divide the number of measurements in the range by the total measurements.

2525=11×100=100%

Therefore, 100% of our measurements fall in the 3 standard deviation range.

03

Comparing the percentages found in part b to the percentages given by the Empirical Rule and Chebyshev’s Rule

According to the Chebyshev rule, very few or none of the measurements fall in the (x¯-s,x¯+s)range and based on the Empirical rule, almost 68% of the measurements fall in this range.

In the 2 standard deviation range, ¾ or 75% of measurements lie here as per the Chebyshev rule and almost 95% according to the Empirical rule.

In the 3 standard deviation range 8/9, or almost 89% measurements are here, and according to the Empirical rule, 99.6% are here.

Now that we know the rules and have the values in part a, we can clearly say that this distribution is in mound shape and conforms to the Empirical Rule.

04

Computing Range and using it to obtain s and comparing it to the actual s

Range = Max – Min

= 12 – 6

= 6

s=Range4=64=1.5

Using the range, the standard deviation is approximately 1.5.

The actual standard deviation is 1.83.

The approximate standard deviation is lower than the actual one.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Shared leadership in airplane crews. Refer to the Human Factors (March 2014) study of shared leadership by the cockpit and cabin crews of a commercial airplane, Exercise 8.14 (p. 466). Recall that each crew was rated as working either successfully or unsuccessfully as a team. Then, during a simulated flight, the number of leadership functions exhibited per minute was determined for each individual crew member. One objective was to compare the mean leadership scores for successful and unsuccessful teams. How many crew members would need to be sampled from successful and unsuccessful teams to estimate the difference in means to within .05 with 99% confidence? Assume you will sample twice as many members from successful teams as from unsuccessful teams. Also, assume that the variance of the leadership scores for both groups is approximately .04.

Forensic analysis of JFK assassination bullets. Following theassassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) in 1963, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) conducted an official government investigation. The HSCA concluded that although there was a probable conspiracy involving at least one shooter in addition to Lee Harvey Oswald, the additional shooter missed all limousine occupants. A recent analysis of assassination bullet fragments, reported in the Annals of Applied Statistics(Vol. 1, 2007), contradicted these findings, concluding that the evidence used by the HSCA to rule out a second assassin is fundamentally flawed. It is well documented that at least two different bullets were the source of bullet fragments found after the assassination. Let E= {bullet evidence used by the HSCA}, T= {two bullets used in the assassination}, and= {more than two bullets used in the assassination}. Given the evidence (E), which is more likely to have occurred— two bullets used (T) or more than two bullets used ?

a. The researchers demonstrated that the ratio,P(T\E)/P(Tc\E), is less than 1. Explain why this result supports the theory of more than two bullets used in the assassination of JFK.

b. To obtain the result, part a, the researchers first showed that P(T\E)P(Tc\E)=[PE\T.PT][PE\Tc.PTc]Demonstrate this equality using Bayes’s Rule.

Hospital work-related injuries. According to an Occupational and Health Safety Administration (OHSA) 2014 report, a hospital is one of the most dangerous places to work. The major cause of injuries that resulted in missed work was overexertion. Almost half (48%) of the injuries that result in missed work were due to overexertion. Let x be the number of hospital-related injuries caused by overexertion.

a. Explain why x is approximately a binomial random variable.

b. Use the OHSA report to estimate p for the binomial random variable of part a.

c. Consider a random sample of 100 hospital workers who missed work due to an on-the-job injury. Use the p from part b to find the mean and standard deviation of, the proportion of the sampled workers who missed work due to overexertion.

d. Refer to part c. Find the probability that the sample proportion is less than .40.

Producer willingness to supply biomass. The conversion of biomass to energy is critical for producing transportation fuels. How willing are producers to supply biomass products such as cereal straw, corn stover, and surplus hay? Economists surveyed producers in both mid-Missouri and southern Illinois (Biomass and Energy, Vol. 36, 2012). Independent samples of 431 Missouri producers and 508 Illinois producers participated in the survey. Each producer was asked to give the maximum proportion of hay produced that they would be willing to sell to the biomass market. Summary statistics for the two groups of producers are listed in the table. Does the mean amount of surplus that hay producers are willing to sell to the biomass market differ for the two areas, Missouri and Illinois? Use a = .05 to make the comparison.

Given that xis a binomial random variable, compute P(x)for each of the following cases:

a. n= 7, x= 3, p= .5

b. n= 4, x= 3, p= .8

c. n= 15, x= 1, p= .1

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free