If you roll a pair of fair dice, what is the probability of
Answer: 0%. The smallest possible sum is two.
Answer: There are 36 total possible outcomes in the sample space for the sum of two dice being rolled. For a sum of 5, there are four possible combinations (1+4, 2+3, 3+2, 4+1). Therefore, the probability is 4/36 = 11%.
Answer: There is only one possible outcome (6+6); therefore, the probability is 1/36 = 3%
The American Community Survey is an ongoing survey that provides data every year to give communities the current information they need to plan investments and services. The 2010 American Community Survey estimates that 14.6% of Americans live below the poverty line, 20.7% speak a language other than English (foreign language) at home, and 4.2% fall into both categories.
Answer: No, because both could occur for the same American.
Answer:
require(VennDiagram)
## Loading required package: VennDiagram
## Loading required package: grid
## Loading required package: futile.logger
draw.pairwise.venn(area1 = 14.6, area2 = 20.7, cross.area = 4.2,
category = c("Living below poverty line", "Speak a language other than English (foreign language) at home"),
cat.pos = c(0, 0))
## (polygon[GRID.polygon.1], polygon[GRID.polygon.2], polygon[GRID.polygon.3], polygon[GRID.polygon.4], text[GRID.text.5], text[GRID.text.6], text[GRID.text.7], text[GRID.text.8], text[GRID.text.9])
Answer: 10.4%
Answer: Using the General Addition rule, the number of people who are below the poverty line and speak a language other than English (foreign language) at home is: 14.6% + 20.7% - 4.2% = 31.1%.
Answer: This would be the probability of the opposite (complement) situation in (d). Therefore, the percent is 1 - 31.1% = 68.9%. We can check by doing it in parts.
Probability of people above the poverty line = 1 - 14.6% = 85.4% Probabiliity of people only speaking English = 1 - 20.7% = 79.3% Probability of people in neither category = 1 - 4.2% = 95.8%
85.4% + 79.3% - 95.8% = 68.9%
Answer:
If the P(A) * P(B) = P(A and B) then A and B would be independent.
Probability of person being below the poverty line - 14.6%
Probability of foreign language being spoken at home - 20.7%
P(Poverty line) * P(forein language) = 14.6% * 20.7 = 3.02%
Since this value is not equal to 4.2%, then it is shown that these two variables are not independent.
Assortative mating is a nonrandom mating pattern where individuals with similar genotypes and/or phenotypes mate with one another more frequently than what would be expected under a random mating pattern. Researchers studying this topic collected data on eye colors of 204 Scandinavian men and their female partners. The table below summarizes the results. For simplicity, we only include heterosexual relationships in this exercise.
Answer:
\[P\left( Blue\_ eyes|Male \right) \quad = \quad \frac { 114 }{ 204 } \\ P\left( Blue\_ eyes|Female \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 108 }{ 204 } \\ P\left( Blue\_ eyes|Male\quad and\quad Blue\_ eyes|Female \right) \quad \quad =\quad \frac { 78 }{ 204 } \\ \frac { 114 }{ 204 } +\frac { 108 }{ 204 } -\frac { 78 }{ 204 } =\frac { 144 }{ 204 } = 0.706\]
Answer:
\[P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female|Blue\_ eye\_ Male \right) =\frac { P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ male\_ and\_ Female \right) }{ P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Male \right) } =\frac { 78 }{ 114 } =0.684\]
Answer:
\[P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female|Brown\_ eye\_ Male \right) =\frac { P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female\_ and\_ Brown\_ eye\_ Male \right) }{ P\left( Brown\_ eye\_ Male \right) } =\frac { 19 }{ 54 } =0.352\]
\[P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female|Green\_ eye\_ Male \right) =\frac { P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female\_ and\_ Green\_ eye\_ Male \right) }{ P\left( Green\_ eye\_ Male \right) } =\frac { 11 }{ 36 } =0.306\]
Using the last example, the eye colors of male respondents and their partners would be independent if
\[P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female|Green\_ eye\_ Male \right) =P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female \right)\]
However, that formula is not true
\[P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female|Green\_ eye\_ Male \right) \neq P\left( Blue\_ eye\_ Female \right) \\ \frac { 11 }{ 36 } \neq \quad \frac { 108 }{ 204 } \]
The table below shows the distribution of books on a bookcase based on whether they are nonfiction or fiction and hardcover or paperback.
Answer:
Using without replacement, the number of books available would decrease from 95 to 94 on the second draw:
\[P\left( Hardcover \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 28 }{ 95 } \\ P\left( Fiction\quad and\quad Paperback \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 59 }{ 94 } \\ \frac { 28 }{ 95 } \ast \frac { 59 }{ 94 } =0.185\]
Answer:
The probability of this happening could occur two ways. First, a paper back fiction book could be selected:
\[P\left( Paper Fiction \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 59 }{ 95 } \\P\left( Hardcover \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 28 }{ 94 } \\ \frac { 59 }{ 95 } \ast \frac { 28 }{ 94 } =0.183\]
Second, a hardback fiction could be selected which means there would be one less Hardcover in the set on the second pick:
\[P\left( Hardcover Fiction \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 13 }{ 95 } \\P\left( Hardcover \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 27 }{ 94 } \\ \frac { 13 }{ 95 } \ast \frac { 27 }{ 94 } =0.039\]
Therefore, the probabiliy would be the sum of the two events noted above:
\[ 0.183 + 0.039 = .222\]
Answer:
\[P\left( Fiction \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 72 }{ 95 } \\P\left( Hardcover \right) \quad =\quad \frac { 28 }{ 95 } \\ \frac { 59 }{ 95 } \ast \frac { 28 }{ 95 } =0.223\]
Answer:
They are very similar because the marginal probabilities do not change much between the scenarios due to the sampling size being much smaller than the population. In this particular example, it is a change from 95 to 94 options, which is not very large (1/95 = 0.0105)
An airline charges the following baggage fees: $25 for the first bag and $35 for the second. Suppose 54% of passengers have no checked luggage, 34% have one piece of checked luggage and 12% have two pieces. We suppose a negligible portion of people check more than two bags.
Answer:
Average revenue:
fees = c(0, 25, 60)
prob = c(0.54, 0.34, 0.12)
bag = c(0, 1, 2)
airline_fees <- data.frame(bag, fees, prob)
airline_fees$weighted <- airline_fees$fees * airline_fees$prob
revenue_per_passenger <- sum(airline_fees$weighted)
revenue_per_passenger
## [1] 15.7
Standard deviation:
airline_fees$var <- (airline_fees$fees - revenue_per_passenger)^2 *
airline_fees$prob
std_per_passenger <- sqrt(sum(airline_fees$var))
std_per_passenger
## [1] 19.95019
Expected revenue:
\[120*E\left( X \right) =120*15.7=1,884\]
Standard deviation:
\[\sqrt { 120*V\left( X \right) } =\sqrt { 120*{ 19.95 }^{ 2 } } =218.54\]
The relative frequency table below displays the distribution of annual total personal income (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars) for a representative sample of 96,420,486 Americans. These data come from the American Community Survey for 2005-2009. This sample is comprised of 59% males and 41% females.
Answer:
Create the frequency table:
require(ggplot2)
## Loading required package: ggplot2
personal_income <- data.frame(c("1_9999", "10000_14999", "15000_24999",
"25000_34999", "35000_49999", "50000_64999", "65000_74999",
"75000_99999", "1000000+"), c(0.022, 0.047, 0.158, 0.183,
0.212, 0.139, 0.058, 0.084, 0.097))
names(personal_income) <- c("Income", "Total")
personal_income$Income <- factor(personal_income$Income, levels = c("1_9999",
"10000_14999", "15000_24999", "25000_34999", "35000_49999",
"50000_64999", "65000_74999", "75000_99999", "1000000+"))
ggplot(personal_income, aes(y = Total, x = Income)) + geom_bar(stat = "identity") +
theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 90))
The data seems to have the highest frequency for the $35,000 to $49,999 range with a right skew. However, the distribution appears to be bimodal with a second smaller peak at the $100,000+ bin.
Answer:
The probability is the sum of the bins for all categories less than $50,000
0.022 + 0.047 + 0.158 + 0.183 + 0.212
## [1] 0.622
Answer:
Here we are asked to compute the probability that a US resident makes less than $50,000 and is female:
\[P\left( <$50,000|Female \right) =P\left( <$50,000\quad and\quad Female \right) \quad /\quad P\left( Female \right)\]
\[P\left( <$50,000\quad and\quad Female \right) \quad =\quad P\left( <$50,000|Female \right) \quad \ast \quad P\left( Female \right)\]
If we assume that females and males have the same propoportion of earning less than $50,000 as the overall sample, we can assume:
\[P\left( <$50,000|Female \right) = P\left( <$50,000|Male \right) \quad =\quad 0.622\]
\[P\left( <$50,000\quad and\quad Female \right) \quad =\quad 0.622\quad *\quad 0.41\quad =\quad 0.255\]
Answer:
\[P\left( <$50,000|Female \right) \quad =\quad P\left( <$50,000\quad and\quad Female \right) /P(Female)\] \[P\left( <$50,000\quad and\quad Female \right) =P\left( <$50,000|Female \right) \ast P(Female)\] \[P\left( <$50,000\quad and\quad Female \right) =0.718\ast 0.41=0.294\]
This value is pretty close to the result in (c); however, there is a difference. As long as the change in the ratio of women to men is small, the overall result will not vary by much. Given the overall change is ~4%, it appears the assumption in (c) is not valid.