Stock Performance and Food Expenditure Analysis
Stock Performance and Food Expenditure Analysis
To find P(X < 7), integrate the density function from 0 to 7. The density function is split as: For 0 ≤ x < 5, f(x) = 0, and for 5 ≤ x ≤ 10, f(x) = (10-x)/25. ∫ from 5 to 7 of (10-x)/25 dx = [10x/25 - x²/(2*25)] evaluated from 5 to 7. Substitute and calculate: (70/25 - 49/50) - (50/25 - 25/50) ≈ 0.82. Thus, the probability that X is less than 7 is approximately 0.82 .
By calculating the sample variance of new exam marks (s² = 210.22) against pre-change variance (σ² = 250), you conduct hypothesis testing: H0: σ² ≥ 250 vs. H1: σ² < 250. The test statistic calculated as: χ² = (n-1)s²/σ² = 9*210.22/250 = 7.567 is compared with critical χ² value (4.168 for df=9 and α=0.1). As 7.567 > 4.168, H0 isn't rejected, indicating marking changes don't significantly reduce variance at 10% significance. This test elucidates marking tweaks' statistical insignificance .
Given a sample mean of $108, population standard deviation of $22, and sample size of 750: The standard error (SE) = σ/√n = 22/√750 ≈ 0.803. For a 95% confidence interval, the Z-score is 1.96. Thus, the confidence interval is: CI = x̄ ± Z*(SE) => 108 ± 1.96*0.803 ≈ 108 ± 1.57 Therefore, the 95% confidence interval is approximately [$106.43, $109.57].
The probability that a stock rated a "good buy" performed well is calculated using Bayes' theorem. Given that a stock performed well last year (25% of stocks), performed on average (50%), or performed poorly (25%), and the probabilities of being rated a "good buy" in each category (40%, 20%, 10% respectively), we have: P(A) = P(E1)P(A|E1) + P(E2)P(A|E2) + P(E3)P(A|E3) = 0.25*0.4 + 0.5*0.2 + 0.25*0.1 = 0.09 Thus, using Bayes' theorem: P(E1 | A) = [P(E1)P(A|E1)] / P(A) = (0.25*0.4) / 0.09 = 0.4 / 0.09 = 4/9 ≈ 0.4444 .
First, calculate the probability that a stock is rated a "good buy": P(A) = P(E1)P(A|E1) + P(E2)P(A|E2) + P(E3)P(A|E3) = 0.25*0.4 + 0.5*0.2 + 0.25*0.1 = 0.09. This means there is a 9% likelihood of a stock being rated a "good buy" across any performance category .
The sample mean provides a central tendency measure, whereas the sample variance offers variability insight. Here, decreased variance in marks signifies reduced score variability due to marking changes. By comparing sample variance to historical variance via hypothesis testing, we assess if marking modifications statistically lower score variation. Despite the sample variance (210.22) being lesser than historical variance (250), statistical tests show no significance at 10% level; thus, we can't conclude variance reduction. This illustrates how sample statistics quantify and hypothesize about effects on outlined changes .
For families spending more than $30 but less than $490, calculate probabilities using Z-scores. With mean $490 and standard deviation $90: Z for $30: (30-490)/90 ≈ -5.11 (essentially 0 due to being far in the tail), Z for $490: (490-490)/90 = 0. The cumulative probability for Z=0 is 0.5. The cumulative probability for Z=-5.11 can be approximated by looking up in Z-table (almost 0). Therefore, the probability range is approximately: P($30 < X < $490) = F(0) - F(-5.11) = 0.5 - 0 ≈ 0.5. Thus, 50% of families spend between $30 and $490 per month .
Using a binomial approximation as normal distribution, where p=0.2 and n=130, calculate the standard error: SE = √[p(1-p)/n] = √[0.2*0.8/130] ≈ 0.035. Compute Z-scores for p̂=0.18 and p̂=0.22: Z(p̂1) = (0.18-0.2)/0.035 ≈ -0.57, Z(p̂2) = (0.22-0.2)/0.035 ≈ 0.57. Using a standard normal table or calculator for Z-scores, obtain P(-0.57 < Z < 0.57) ≈ 0.4314. Thus, the probability the sample proportion is between 0.18 and 0.22 is 0.4314 .
Larger sample sizes generally decrease the margin of error, tightening confidence intervals. In this survey, n=750 yields SE = σ/√n = 22/√750 ≈ 0.803. Larger n decreases SE, thus narrowing the confidence interval for the mean $108, reducing estimation uncertainty. For 95% confidence, CI calculated as 108±1.96*0.803 yields narrower bounds: [106.43, 109.57]. Thus, expansive sample sizes advantageously provide precision and reliability in estimating population parameters, affirming CI's robustness with decreased parameter variance .
The null hypothesis states the variance has not decreased (H0: σ² ≥ 250), while the alternative hypothesis claims it has decreased (H1: σ² < 250). Observed sample variance s² is 210.22 with a χ² statistic calculated as (n-1)*s²/σ₀² = 9*210.22/250 = 7.567. Using χ² distribution tables or calculators, obtain the critical value χ²₀.1,9 = 4.168 for df=9 and α=0.1. Since 7.567 > 4.168, we fail to reject H0. Thus, there is no statistical evidence at the 10% significance level that the variance has decreased .