Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 13

# Thornleigh Salesian College, Bolton

## Stats Easter School: 5. Estimation

Q1.The volume of bleach in a 5-litre bottle may be modelled by a random variable with a
standard deviation of 75 millilitres.
The volume, in litres, of bleach in each of a random sample of 36 such bottles was
measured. The 36 measurements resulted in a total volume of 181.80 litres and exactly 8
bottles contained less than 5 litres.
(a)

Construct a 98% confidence interval for the mean volume of bleach in a 5-litre
bottle.
(5)

(b)

It is claimed that the mean volume of bleach in a 5-litre bottle exceeds 5 litres and
also that fewer than 10 per cent of such bottles contain less than 5 litres.
Comment, with numerical justification, on each of these two claims.
(3)

(c)

State, with justification, whether you made use of the Central Limit Theorem in
constructing the confidence interval in part (a).
(1)
(Total 9 marks)

Q2.The weight, W grams, of a bag of sugar may be assumed to be normally distributed with a
mean of 1018 and a standard deviation of 10.
(a)

(i)

(2)

(ii)

## W is greater than 1015 but less than 1030.

(3)

(b)

A box contains 24 such bags of sugar. Assuming that these 24 bags may be
regarded as a random sample, determine the probability that their mean weight
exceeds 1015 grams.
(4)
(Total 9 marks)

Page 1

## Thornleigh Salesian College, Bolton

Q3.A random sample of 50 full-time university employees was selected as part of a higher
education salary survey.
The annual salary in thousands of pounds, x, of each employee was recorded, with the
following summarised results.
x = 2290.0

and

(x xx) = 28 225.50
2

Also recorded was the fact that 6 of the 50 salaries exceeded 60 000.
(a)

(i)

(ii)

2

(3)

## Hence show why the annual salary, X, of a full-time university employee is

(2)

(b)

(i)

Indicate why the mean annual salary, Xx, of a random sample of 50 full-time
university employees may be assumed to be normally distributed.
(2)

(ii)

Hence construct a 99% confidence interval for the mean annual salary of fulltime university employees.
(4)

(c)

## It is claimed that the annual salaries of full-time university employees have an

average which exceeds 55 000 and that more than 25% of such salaries exceed
60 000.
Comment on each of these two claims.
(3)
(Total 14 marks)

Page 2

xx =

M1.(a)

5.05 or 5050
CAO
B1

## 98% (0.98) z = 2.32 to 2.33

AWFW
(2.3263)
B1

CI for is
Used with z (2.05 to 2.58), xx (5.05, 5050 or 181.8),
(0.0075, 0.075, 0.75, 7.5 or 75)
and
with n > 1
M1

## z (2.05 to 2.06 or 2.32 to 2.33 or 2.57 to 2.58),

xx (5.05) & (0.075) or xx (5050) & (75)
and
A1

## Hence 5.05 0.03 or 5050 30

OR
(5.02, 5.08) or (5020, 5080)
CAO / AWRT

Page 3

## Dependent on previous A1 so can be scored with

z 2.32 to 2.33
Ignore (absence of) quoted units
AWRT to 3sf accuracy
5

Note

(b)

## Clear correct comparison of 5 or 5000 with LCL or CI

so
agree with (first) claim (about mean)
Must use consistent units

## (8 / 36 or 0.22 or 22%) v (1 / 10 or 0.10 or 10%)

or 8 v 3.6 (3 to 4)
Mention of a value on LHS and a value on RHS
B1

so
8 / 36 OE >/ 1 / 10 OE
so
disagree with (second) claim (about individuals)
Dependent on B1
Explicit comparison of values and correct conclusion
Bdep1
3

## Notes 1 It / (claimed) mean / (claimed) value < LCL / CI Adep0

Must indicate 5 or 5000
2 98% have (mean) weights between CLs so Adep0
3 Any reference to CI for second claim B0 Bdep0
Claim refers to individual bottles

Page 4

(c)

## Yes because volumes / bleach / litres / bottles / (parent) population

are not (stated as) normally distributed
OE; but do not accept data or sample or it
Reference to sample size only B0
(eg n > 25 or n > 30)
B1
1

[9]

M2.(a)

Weight, W N (1018, 10 )
2

(i)

## P(W < 1025) =

Standardising (1024.5, 1025 or 1025.5) with 1018
and (10, 10 or 10 ) and / or (1018 x)
May be gained in (a)(i) or (a)(ii)
2

M1
P(Z < 0.7) = 0.758
AWRT (0.75804)
A1
2

(ii)

## P(1015 < W < 1030)

= P (W < 1030) P(W < 1015)
= P(Z < 1.2) P(Z < 0.3)
Difference of two probabilities
May be implied
M1
= 0.88493 (1 0.61791)
Area change
M1
= 0.502 to 0.504
AWFW (0.50284)
A1
3

Page 5

## Normal with = 1018 and

(b)

to 4.2
CAO/AWFW (4.16666)
B1

or

to 2.05
CAO/AWFW (2.04124)

; not
M1

## = P (Z > 1.47) = 1 P(Z <1.47)

Area change
May be implied by answer > 0.5
m1
= 0.927 to 0.932
AWFW (0.92918)
A1
4

[9]

Page 6

M3.(a)

(i)

xx =

= 45.8 or 45800
CAO
B1

(s =)
2

or (s =)
Ignore notation
M1

AWRT / AWFW
( = 23.75942)

(24.00064)

## SCs: (for no seen working)

M1 A1 for 24.0 or 24000 to 24001
M1 A0 for 24 or 23700 to 23800
A1
3

(ii)

xx ns = (45.8 n 24.0)

## SC: Accept quoted values of

(4 to 1) (n = 2) or (28.5 to 23.5) (n = 3)
(both AWFW)
Allow (45 to 47) and any multiple of
(23.5 to 24.5) which gives value < 0
Must clearly state the value of a numerical expression
M1

## and negative salaries are impossible

OE; must be in context
Negative values impossible A0
A1

Page 7

## Thornleigh Salesian College, Bolton

2

Alternative solution 1
P(X ) = P(Z < 1.91)
Standardising 0 using 45.8 & 24.0
2

(M1)

= 0.027 to 0.03
In addition to probability within range,
must state that negative salaries are impossible
(A1)
(2)

Alternative solution 2
P(X > 60 | N(45.8, 24.0 )) = P(Z > 0.59)
Standardising 60 using 45.8 & 24.0
2

(M1)

= 0.27 to 0.28
In addition to probability within range,
must compare calculated value to 6 / 50 = 0.12 OE
(A1)
(2)

(b)

(i)

OE
B1

Page 8

## Thornleigh Salesian College, Bolton

so CLT applies
Must indicate CLT; dependent on B1
Indication that other than sample mean
is normally distributed Bdep0
Bdep1
2

(ii)

## 99% (0.99) z = 2.57 to 2.58

AWFW
(2.5758)
B1
CI for is

xx z
Used with (xx & s) from (a)(i) and
z(1.64 to 2.58) &
with n > 1
M1

Thus

45.8 2.5758
F on (xx & s) with
&
z(1.64 to 1.65 or 2.32 to 2.33 or 2.57 to 2.58)
AF1

## Hence 45.8 (8.7 to 8.8)

or
45800 (8700 to 8800)
OR
(37.(0) to 37.1, 54.5 to 54.6)
or
(37000 to 37100, 54500 to 54600)
CAO / AWFW
(8.74)
Ignore (absence of) quoted units
AWFW
A1
4

Page 9

(c)

## See supplementary sheet for additional illustrations

Clear correct comparison of 55 or 55000 with cs UCL or CI
Accept 55000 compared with
cs 54.5 to 54.6 (ie different units)
B1

## (6/50 or 0.12 or 12%) </ 0.25 or 25%

OE; correct comparison mentioning both 12% and 25%
B1

## Reject both / each of the two claims

Dependent on B1 B1
Bdep1
3

It / (claimed) mean / (claimed) value > UCL / CI
Must indicate 55 or 55000
(B0)

(B0)

## Any comparison of 60 (60 000) with UCL / IC

Value of 60 does not refer to mean
(B0)

Page 10

## P(X < 60 | N(45.8, 24.0 )) = P(Z > 0.59)

= (0.27 to 0.28) < 6 / 50 = 0.12
Assumes salaries ~ N; cf (a)(ii)
2

(B0)
[14]

Page 11

## Thornleigh Salesian College, Bolton

E1.The better students generally scored full marks in part (a) usually by working in litres.
However, far too many students provided answers that ranged from worthless to scoring
at most 3 marks. Errors seen in abundance were:

an incorrect evaluation of

## the use of 75 or 0.75 instead of 0.075;

an incorrect zvalue;

## ; this despite the use of a calculator;

Many of these errors resulted in absurd confidence intervals that students appeared to
simply accept as correct. The one mark for answering the first claim in part (b) was only
available to those better students who had obtained a correct confidence interval in part
(a)(ii). Even so, many such students made no comparison using the stated mean of 5
litres but merely commented that their calculated mean of 5.05 was greater than 5. This
was very disappointing particularly given similar requests on previous papers. In
answering the second claim in part (b), many students again referred to their confidence
interval and so scored no marks. Of those that correctly evaluated
as 22%, far too
many were not sufficiently explicit in comparing this with 10% and so scored only 1 of the
2 marks available. It was extremely rare to see an answer worthy of the mark in part (c).
Most students made reference to sample size although some suggested that the question
had stated that volume was normally distributed! The minority who had some idea of what
was required were almost always not sufficiently precise or careful enough in their
answers. Thus it was common to read references to the sample, the data or it rather
than for example the (parent) population or volume (of bleach).

E2.Most candidates achieved the 5 marks available in part (a) but very few were able to make
significant progress in part (b). This was disappointing, particularly as the distribution of
the sample mean has been examined on several previous papers. Almost all candidates
knew how to standardise without introducing an unnecessary continuity correction,
which was penalised and so the majority completed part (a)(i) accurately. In part (a)(ii),
the majority of candidates realised that a difference of two areas was required, with many
obtaining the correct answer. Failure to apply the necessary area change for P (Z < 0.3)
was by far the most common error. The majority of candidates simply worked with the
distribution of W, rather than

## , and so scored no marks. Candidates who worked with

the distribution of
, and so obtained correctly P (Z > 147), sometimes then failed to
make the correct area change and so lost 2 marks.

Page 12

## Thornleigh Salesian College, Bolton

E3.Most candidates found much of this question very challenging. In part (a)(i), it was most
disappointing to see the number of candidates failing to score 3 marks. Whilst there was
some excuse for candidates dividing (x xx) by 50, rather than 49, there was really no
2

## trying to substitute x into (x xx) or dividing x by a variety of denominators. Some

candidates were confused, either at the outset or later, by the units involved with invalid
multiplications of s by 1000 taking place at some point. In part (a)(ii), the common
incorrect answers were verbose about university salaries or simply that 24.0 was too large
when compared to 45.8. Even those candidates who calculated, for example (45.8 2
24.0), simply stated that a normal distribution or it, instead of salaries, could not take
negative values. Answers to part (b)(i) were slightly better with candidates indicating a
large sample so Central Limit Theorem applied. Some candidates lost both marks for if
sample is large whilst others lost a mark for suggesting that other than the sample mean
could be assumed to be normally distributed. There were many partially correct answers
to part (b)(ii) using follow-through answers from part (a)(i) though some candidates lost
further marks for an incorrect z-value. In answering part (c), a majority of candidates
attempted the comparison of 55 with their CI or UCL. However, far too many then did the
2

## same with 60 rather than compare

= 12% with 25%, or considered the standardising of
60 using a normal distribution. This perhaps suggested that they had not read the
question with sufficient care.

Page 13