The Student Room Group

AQA MS1B Wednesday 8th June 2016 Exam Discussion Thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by luk3miller
I got 0.123. I got the 0.00513 but then I multiplied it by 4 factorial as there were 4 patients, so 4! different combinations.

I thought it would have been 4C2 because 4 patients but there were 2 pairs of the same patients, therefore 4 ways to arrange 2 pairs
Reply 81
Original post by TIF141
One of them was exactly 166.67, so was it not 8/40 = 20%?


Original post by tomdavis.
No, only the first one was as the means was 381 in euros and 381 does not equal 400

But the second said at most 25% were paying less than 200 euro which is 166.67 pounds, and 7/40 paid less than 166.67 pounds.... Which is 17.5% therefore the claim is valid as 17.5<25

:frown: I didn't realise it was 200 euros, so I just said 10/40 less than £200 which was 2.5 . Thought it was a bit of a radon m question...
Original post by henrynormski
There weren't 4 different combinations as the denominator remained the same


The denominator changed as there were 500 people and 4 were added: /504 X /503 X /502 X /501


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TIF141
One of them was exactly 166.67, so was it not 8/40 = 20%?


166.67 * 1.2 > 200, so unfortunately I don't think so.
I found this paper pretty so-so... I've been getting 85/90 UMS on past papers, but I'll be lucky to scrape 80UMS on this one. After looking at how Stats papers are marked, I'm confident I'll get a good amount of method marks, but I just found some questions weird and I'm not completely confident in my answers. :frown:

Original post by tomdavis.
No, only the first one was as the means was 381 in euros and 381 does not equal 400

But the second said at most 25% were paying less than 200 euro which is 166.67 pounds, and 7/40 paid less than 166.67 pounds.... Which is 17.5% therefore the claim is valid as 17.5<25


I got this answer too. :smile: I was so grateful Q7, it was a nice question to end the paper after I'd had mixed feelings on the rest of it. :frown:
Original post by TIF141
One of them was exactly 166.67, so was it not 8/40 = 20%?


It said less than 200 euros hence 7/40
Original post by I like cows
For the last question, both the claims were incorrect, werent they?

both correct i put
Original post by medic1010101
The denominator changed as there were 500 people and 4 were added: /504 X /503 X /502 X /501

Posted from TSR Mobile


You are using that tables results for a sample of the dentist for the other patients, so denominator will remain the same
Reply 88
Original post by luk3miller
166.67 * 1.2 > 200, so unfortunately I don't think so.


200/1.2 = 166.66666666666... So I suppose it depends on whether you interpret that as .67 or .6 recurring
Original post by tomdavis.
No, only the first one was as the means was 381 in euros and 381 does not equal 400

But the second said at most 25% were paying less than 200 euro which is 166.67 pounds, and 7/40 paid less than 166.67 pounds.... Which is 17.5% therefore the claim is valid as 17.5<25


Did you convert to euros
Original post by henrynormski
You are using that tables results for a sample of the dentist for the other patients, so denominator will remain the same


I'm not sure. So what exactly did you do?


Posted from TSR Mobile
on a normal distibution one which was about greater than 10% did you just convert 1-0.1 (0.9)-1.2816?
I said 7/40 which is 17.5% but everyone is saying 8/40?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tomdavis.
No, only the first one was as the means was 381 in euros and 381 does not equal 400

But the second said at most 25% were paying less than 200 euro which is 166.67 pounds, and 7/40 paid less than 166.67 pounds.... Which is 17.5% therefore the claim is valid as 17.5<25


The mean of the sample was 381 euros. They wanted you to find the mean of all people who exchanged currency, so the population. They wanted you to compare the mean with the confidence interval.
Reply 94
Original post by TIF141
200/1.2 = 166.66666666666... So I suppose it depends on whether you interpret that as .67 or .6 recurring

In that case They might put in the margin of the mark scheme "allow"
Original post by medic1010101
I'm not sure. So what exactly did you do?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Adding 4 to the Deominator makes no sense.

The probabilities are for a pool of 500 patients, so adding 4 will change the probabilities for each event.

You're looking at 4 patients outside the 500 sampled, so you will keep the same denominator. As you don't change the denominator, the arrangement of events won't change.
Reply 96
Original post by sean.17
In that case They might put in the margin of the mark scheme "allow"

Ah okay, I hope so!
Reply 97
Pretty good paper, reckon maybe low 90ums or something like that. Quick question, for the measure the spread question i put range, is that ok instead of sd or variance?
Reply 98
Original post by Olsmarto
I said 7/40 which is 17.5% but everyone is saying 8/40
Posted from TSR Mobile


You are correct
So this is what i got. Only one im not sure about is the last bit of 3 i times it by 12 but not sure if it was 6 or 12

1a. 0.959
b. Strong positive corilation between height and arm span

2. Median =26
IQR=2
b. Two things are range and mean
c. Range=45 mean =25.6

3a. 0.352
b. 0.136
c. 0.158
d. 0.791
e. 0.267
f.0.0925

4. Y=3.00X + 181
b. Every degree increase =3g increase
c. 385
d. Accurate as small residules

5a. 0.941
b. 0.149
c. 0.792
d.1
e.1522.7
f. 0.841 for each
g.0.993 for mean of the 6

6a. 0.0262
b.0.880
c. 0.101
d.0.891
e.mean=54 var=44.28

7a. (258.67,376.33) remember they gave s you need pop sd for confidence iterval. I think i got sd as 144.something
b.first not valid as mean is less. Second valid as 20%

Marks
1a. 3
B. 2

2a. 1
B.2
C.2
D.3

3a. 9
B.5

4a. 4
B.2
C.1
D.2

5a. 7
B.4
C.7

6a. 2
B.1
C.3
D.4
E.5

7a. 4
B.5
(edited 7 years ago)

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending