The Student Room Group

Official Edexcel S3 thread Wednesday 20 May 2015 Morning [6691]

Scroll to see replies

Reply 440
what did everyone get for Q2 (16 staff and 14 children question )the figure for S2 (var )is it about one thousand something?
Original post by Navo D.
1587 iirc yeah, hopefully we're both right. What'd you write for the last part of the stratified sampling question?


Was it to explain the difference ? Because n in small standard error is high.
Original post by xyzmaster
Was it to explain the difference ? Because n in small standard error is high.


Yeah that one. Ah okay I wrote something similar
I did the last decade's worth of papers in preparation but this is the hardest paper I've seen. Doable, just.
Reply 444
Original post by haonan
what did everyone get for Q2 (16 staff and 14 children question )the figure for S2 (var )is it about one thousand something?


1026 yes
Original post by xyzmaster
Was it to explain the difference ? Because n in small standard error is high.


Oh yes, Im not sure about that one I just wrote the sampling didn't give the full representation of the population
Original post by haonan
what did everyone get for Q2 (16 staff and 14 children question )the figure for S2 (var )is it about one thousand something?


1026.3...
Original post by Navo D.
Yeah that one. Ah okay I wrote something similar


What was your spcc. -6?
Original post by haonan
what did everyone get for Q2 (16 staff and 14 children question )the figure for S2 (var )is it about one thousand something?


1026........
ImageUploadedByStudent Room1432116128.625451.jpg

Forgive me if I'm wrong :smile:
Original post by xyzmaster
What was your spcc. -6?


0.6 lol
Reply 451
For the contingency table (6c?) you proved 27... by dividing by 50?
Wasn't 1026.3 wrong? Because I misread the question at first and it talks about WHOLE population
Reply 453
Is there a grade boundery which edexcel use to deviate from or is it solely dependent on how students do overall in the exam??
Reply 454
Original post by Navo D.
0.6 lol


Nah it was a negative correlation. Less pages - more sales or whatever it was.
Original post by STATER
For the contingency table (6c?) you proved 27... by dividing by 50?


Wasn't it by 100?
Original post by STATER
Nah it was a negative correlation. Less pages - more sales or whatever it was.


I also got 0.6. Probably depends how you do your ranks
Original post by STATER
Nah it was a negative correlation. Less pages - more sales or whatever it was.


Sounds like one where they'd take either.
Reply 458
Original post by Saracen's Fez
Wasn't it by 100?


For me it was coming out as half the value so not seeing what the problem was I made it 50
Original post by STATER
For the contingency table (6c?) you proved 27... by dividing by 50?


I think is dividing by 100...

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending