You are on page 1of 2

Maria Zolotsev

Math 1040
Term Project
Reflection Portion
Part 4
As individuals, for one value of your categorical variable (chose body weight from body
measurements database), create confidence intervals from each of your samples. Create
confidence intervals for the mean of each of your quantitative samples. Do CI for simple random
sample of size n=10 and then size n=40.
As group, gather and assemble results from all your classmates. In a reflection paper, explain
the meaning of these confidence intervals. Did the intervals capture the population parameter?

(use attached copy of my work if needed)
From this assignment there was a lot to gather and a lot of information that could be
used to make conclusions. After working with Brooke and comparing our samples to 2 other
students in the class (Megan and Paul), we distinguished a pattern that would overall give us a
purpose about the meaning behind our confidence intervals and the population parameter.
First and foremost, after comparing my data, I noticed that as my sample size got bigger
(n10 compared to n40), the margin of error had decreased significantly. Not only was this
noticed by me, but my peers results had also followed the same pattern. Brooke for instance,
decreased by at least 3 and it altered her intervals, yet they werent so far away from mine and
contained the mean desired. Therefore, although we had different margins of error, we could
summarize that if we were to keep increasing the sample size value, the margins of error would
slowly, but surely, decrease.
Another thing I noted was that with a higher n value (sample size), the sample mean
grows closer to the popular mean. When comparing 10 samples to comparing 40, the mean
was more precise and worked with less numbers. This was true for all four of our results
because Brookes, Megans, Pauls, and my own intervals all contained a smaller variance when
dealing with more values. On another note, the popular variance of our highest value, n=40,
helped us furthermore determine more out layers which did go hand in hand with our various
intervals. The parameters therefore were smaller and still contained the popular mean even
though we all might have been a few decimals off. This also goes to show that since we were
working with such a small sample size out of 508 values (especially n10) there would be less
variety in our intervals.
We concluded with 95% certainty the population mean falls within the margin of error
and within the intervals that contained the true mean. With that said, we can infer that if we
had used maybe 100 or 200 of the weight values, those parameters would have shrunk and
been even more closer to the accurate population mean of 69.15.