Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazza ma razza)
    well q4 was hard. Otherwise reckon I got 68/69+

    boundaries for 100, 90, 80 UMS?

    I think
    71+ for 100
    67+ for 90
    56+ for 80
    It won't be that low for an A, the paper wasn't that bad. I imagine 59 or 60 for an A.

    67ish, maybe 68 for 90 seems about right, that's where it usually is. No chance of 71 being 100 UMS though, it's rarely below 74, and the people in contention for 100UMS would still likely be getting 72+, as the paper wasn't too bad once you thought through what was being asked.

    I reckon 60 for an 80UMS, 68 for 90UMS, and 74, maaaybe 73 for 100UMS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jackhawkins21)
    that is wrong. You time the 40 by your part d(i) and your 37 by part d(ii) and you get 33
    well could you explain why its wrong?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    VOTE ON HOW YOU FOUND THE EXAM http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...1#post65795491
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hbaig27)
    I said the median and mean were so close that there was just a slight skew, because it was so small it could be seen as symmetrical and normal distribution is okay

    I've seen them accept both justified sides
    i wrote that from the table the frequence is 9, from calculation of last part times 50 is 12, so its reasonably close and since mean is pretty much equal to median that the data is very nearly symmetrical, so normal could be used
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abbey1)
    Did anyone else say that the mean decreased?? I know you weren't supposed to use calculations but I did just to check my answer. The new baby was 3.43 but that means that the fx value is now (18x3.25) not (17x3.25) then divided by 51 instead of 50. In ungrouped data it would stay the same but I thought because it was grouped it'd decrease?? Think I've got it wrong!!
    I swear the mean stayed the same?????


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Pure is far easier. Give me a C4 exam over S1 any day.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone explain the probi of q2? why ur guys can get 0.475 and 0.375
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by ShatnersBassoon)
    Also, what was the effect of the new data on the PMCC for question 3?
    I said something along the lines of 'his suggestion is unreliable as the Median(Calculated from b.) was 3.47 which is greater than the mean (Proven from cii.) of 3.43. This means there is a slight negative skew. Part e) was calculated based on the assumption of nil skewness.'
    I had thought about mentioning standard deviation but as it was calculated in part d) and the question explicitly asked for references to b, cii and e), I was prompted to exclude it from the formulation of my answer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Florent venhari)
    I swear the mean stayed the same?????


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It probably did, I was massively overthinking this question!!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Florent venhari)
    I swear the mean stayed the same?????


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    i put the the new sample size is not significantly larger than the old one so the mean would decrease by a very little amount, so theoretically we may assume that it was unchanged
    Online

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Is it fine to give answers to 2dp for questions where they have values of 3sf?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i think the Z value will be negative. in this context, the fastest is the left side of the normal distribution graph.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexesl17)
    well could you explain why its wrong?
    It's two different probabilities, the total may be 77 but you times each one by the values the quoted for you 40 and 37
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jackhawkins21)
    yes 0.1 and 0.2 is wrong
    Thought so.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zandneger)
    While this may be a valid answer, the other parts of the question indicated that he was wrong. The question specifically asked for you to use your answers from b), c) and d) to come to a conclusion. b) showed that the median was not equal to the mean, c) showed that the standard deviation was not 0.65 and d) showed that the proportion of babies with weight below 3kg was not the same as the table. I think you'd still get the marks if you've given a valid explanation, just that the question said to take more than just the averages into account
    The question actually said part c (i) which is the mean it didn't mention c (ii) which was sd
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timelizard)
    only 2, dont stress
    i remember getting 0 for one of the probability questions?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The paper was quite tricky imo, especially the Venn diagram question
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CourtlyCanter)
    I said something along the lines of 'his suggestion is unreliable as the Median(Calculated from b.) was 3.47 which is greater than the mean (Proven from cii.) of 3.43. This means there is a slight negative skew. Part e) was calculated based on the assumption of nil skewness.'
    I had thought about mentioning standard deviation but as it was calculated in part d) and the question explicitly asked for references to b, cii and e) prompted me exclude it from the answer.
    That was the other explanation question (normal distribution model). The one I was asking about was how the new datum (14 and 70) affected r in question 3.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CourtlyCanter)
    I said something along the lines of 'his suggestion is unreliable as the Median(Calculated from b.) was 3.47 which is greater than the mean (Proven from cii.) of 3.43. This means there is a slight negative skew. Part e) was calculated based on the assumption of nil skewness.'
    I had thought about mentioning standard deviation but as it was calculated in part d) and the question explicitly asked for references to b, cii and e) prompted me exclude it from the answer.
    3.43 vs 3.47. I said they were about equal. However I did use part d and suggested that it was not wholly accurate.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I know 0.1 and 0.2 is wrong for P and Q, but can someone tell how many marks I'll lose, cause my working for the rest of q was all right, just used the wrong numbers
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: August 22, 2016
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.