The Student Room Group

Stats 2 (S2) OCR (not MEI) 22nd June 2012

Scroll to see replies

how did u get the paper alreadyy ?!
Original post by Coolina133
how did u get the paper alreadyy ?!

I was the only one doing the paper in my school, so I was allowed to take the paper home. I scanned it in, converted to PDF, and here we are. No conspiracy! :tongue:
thats not fairr. howd u find it
Original post by Coolina133
thats not fairr. howd u find it

I was quite happy with it. There was nothing greatly taxing, but the only things I'm not 100% on are (2i) and (8iii).

For 2i) I calculated Var(Vˉ)\mathrm {Var}(\bar V), but I'm not sure whether or not I was supposed to reverse central limit theorem by multiplying my answer by 40. I did so and got an answer around 170-something.

As for 8iii), I think it should be μ30\mu \neq 30, because P(X4)P(X \geq 4) was so low that it shouldn't have happened four times if μ=30\mu = 30.
i made x binominal with 20 and p 0.05
then found the p(x> and equal to 4)
then said i think mu is 30 because the probablity is small
Original post by CraigKirk
I was quite happy with it. There was nothing greatly taxing, but the only things I'm not 100% on are (2i) and (8iii).

For 2i) I calculated Var(Vˉ)\mathrm {Var}(\bar V), but I'm not sure whether or not I was supposed to reverse central limit theorem by multiplying my answer by 40. I did so and got an answer around 170-something.

As for 8iii), I think it should be μ30\mu \neq 30, because P(X4)P(X \geq 4) was so low that it shouldn't have happened four times if μ=30\mu = 30.


and i got 173 for var (x)
Original post by Coolina133
and i got 173 for var (x)

That's encouraging :biggrin:
Original post by Coolina133
i made x binominal with 20 and p 0.05
then found the p(x> and equal to 4)
then said i think mu is 30 because the probablity is small

But if the probability is small, but it did actually happen four times regardless of that small probability, I don't think it can be 30. However, until some expert comes along, we can't be sure, so I won't battle it out as I'm not 100% sure.
Reply 68
Original post by CraigKirk
I was quite happy with it. There was nothing greatly taxing, but the only things I'm not 100% on are (2i) and (8iii).

For 2i) I calculated Var(Vˉ)\mathrm {Var}(\bar V), but I'm not sure whether or not I was supposed to reverse central limit theorem by multiplying my answer by 40. I did so and got an answer around 170-something.

As for 8iii), I think it should be μ30\mu \neq 30, because P(X4)P(X \geq 4) was so low that it shouldn't have happened four times if μ=30\mu = 30.


Yes you were supposed to multiply it by 40 as they asked for Var(V), i got 174 i think, something along those lines.
Original post by JongKey
Yes you were supposed to multiply it by 40 as they asked for Var(V), i got 174 i think, something along those lines.

Yes, good, I'm glad. I was just a touch unsure because the mean was far lower than the variance, which is unusual among OCR S2 questions. Thanks!
Reply 70
Original post by toffee822
33.58


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App


Same :smile:
Reply 71
Original post by CraigKirk
Yes, good, I'm glad. I was just a touch unsure because the mean was far lower than the variance, which is unusual among OCR S2 questions. Thanks!


Np, i have to say this was a very nice paper. It's unfortunate for people who made silly mistakes (i'm so hoping i didn't, i rechecked like a mad man lol) as the grade boundaries are going to be very high. I'm guessing a 61/62 for an A but i'm no expert at this, it's just a guess.
Original post by JongKey
Np, i have to say this was a very nice paper. It's unfortunate for people who made silly mistakes (i'm so hoping i didn't, i rechecked like a mad man lol) as the grade boundaries are going to be very high. I'm guessing a 61/62 for an A but i'm no expert at this, it's just a guess.

As long as they aren't as high as the FP1 boundaries were in January. 67/72 for an A. That's over 90% for 80 UMS! I was very irritated to get a B in that module, probably due to stupid mistakes.
Reply 73
Original post by CraigKirk
As long as they aren't as high as the FP1 boundaries were in January. 67/72 for an A. That's over 90% for 80 UMS! I was very irritated to get a B in that module, probably due to stupid mistakes.


67?! That's ridiculous, i can't believe that was even allowed. I'm glad i did mine last year.
Original post by CraigKirk
As long as they aren't as high as the FP1 boundaries were in January. 67/72 for an A. That's over 90% for 80 UMS! I was very irritated to get a B in that module, probably due to stupid mistakes.


your joking right :/ what the actual hell ?!
for the first 2 hypothesis tests, did everyone get 2 tailed?!
Original post by JongKey
67?! That's ridiculous, i can't believe that was even allowed. I'm glad i did mine last year.


Original post by Coolina133
your joking right :/ what the actual hell ?!

Haha, I wish I was joking! No, I got 79 UMS for that module, so I must have got 66/72 raw marks in January. I imagine it caused many candidates to be unhappy with it, since silly mistakes could've caused many candidates to drop to a grade below that they deserved.

Also, I think the fact that most people take FP1 in June (after having done C1 and C2 in january) means that only those who were very confident actually took it in January. That always pushes boundaries up.
Original post by Coolina133
for the first 2 hypothesis tests, did everyone get 2 tailed?!

Yeaaah, they're both two-tailed.
Original post by Coolina133
for the first 2 hypothesis tests, did everyone get 2 tailed?!


Yes :smile:. Btw how did you do 8iii)? I done 1-(p(x=0)+p(x=1)+p(x=2)) using s1 binominal rules. Not sure if i'm right though. I got a small value like 0.01 ish
Original post by studentofskhs
Yes :smile:. Btw how did you do 8iii)? I done 1-(p(x=0)+p(x=1)+p(x=2)) using s1 binominal rules. Not sure if i'm right though. I got a small value like 0.01 ish


i did the binominal thing too!! and got 0.015... but i used a graphical calcultor, so i just typed it in and that lol.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending