- P(sum of 2 dice is 1) = 0
The probability of getting a sum of 1 when you roll a pair of dice is not a possibility.
- P(sum of 2 dice is 5)
| 1st die | 2nd die | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 3 | (1/6)*(1/6)=(1/36) |
| 3 | 2 | (1/6)*(1/6)=(1/36) |
| 4 | 1 | (1/6)*(1/6)=(1/36) |
| 1 | 4 | (1/6)*(1/6)=(1/36) |
Rolling of first and second die are independent of each other. Each possible outcome are mutually exclusive.
P(2 and 3) or P(3 and 2) or P(4 and 1) or P(1 and 4) = (1/36) + (1/36) + (1/36) + (1/36) = (4/36) = 1/9 ~ 11.11%
P_sumOf2Dice_5 = (1/36) + (1/36) + (1/36) + (1/36)
P_sumOf2Dice_5
## [1] 0.1111111
- P(getting a sum of 12)
| 1st die | 2nd die | Probability |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | 6 | (1/6)*(1/6)=(1/36) |
So, there’s only one way to get a sum of 12 when you roll 2 dice.
P(getting a sum of 12) = 1/36
Poverty and language.
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.
No. 4.2% of the American survyed in 2010 both are living below the poverty line and speak a language other than English.
10.4% of Americans live below poverty line and only speak English at home.
P(live below poverty line) + P(Speak foreign language at home) - P(below poverty line and speak foreign language at home) =
14.6 + 20.7 - 4.2 = 31.1.
1 - [P(live below poverty line) + P(Speak foreign language at home) - P(below poverty line and speak foreign language at home)]
100 - 31.1 = 68.9
No. These are not mutually exclusive events. Knowing that an individual speaks a foreign language at home would give us information regarding the probability that this individual is living below the poverty line.
Assortative mating.
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.
Total Respondents = 204
- Males with blue eyes = 114
- Males with female partners with blue eyes = 108
- Males with blue eyes and with female partners with blue eyes = 78
P(male has blue eyes) + P(female partner has blue eys) - P(couple both have blue eyes)
(114/204) + (108/204) - (78/204) = (144/204) = (12/17) ~ 70.59%
with blue eyes?
- Males with blue eyes = 114
- Males with blue eyes and with female partners with blue eyes = 78
P(male has blue eyes and partner has blue eyes | male has blue eyes)
78/114 = 13/19 ~ 68.42%
with blue eyes? What about the probability of a randomly chosen male respondent with green eyes having a partner with blue eyes?
- Males with brown eyes = 54
- Males with brown eyes and with female partners with blue eyes = 19
P(male with brown eyes and female partner with blue eyes | male has brown eyes)
19/54 ~ 35.19%
- Males with green eyes = 36
- Males with green eyes and with female partners with blue eyes = 11
P(male with green eyes and female partner with blue eyes | male has green eyes)
11/36 ~ 30.56%
It appears that the colors of male respondents and their partners eyes are not independent of each other because the conditional probability of men with blue, brown, and green eyes having a partner with blue appear to be different enough. In this study, the probability of a blue eyed man having a female partner with blue eyes as well is 68%, which is a lot higher compared to about 35% for brown eyed men and to about 30% for green eyed men. This difference could either be because of an underlying association or just by chance. A null hypothesis testing would need to be performed.
The table below shows the distribution of books on a bookcase based on whether they are nonfiction or fiction and hardcover or paperback.
- Total Books = 95
- Hardcover = 28
- Paperback Fiction = 59
(28/95) * (59/94) = (1652/8930) = (826/4465) ~ 18.50%
- Fiction = 72
- Hardcover = 28
(72/95) * (28/94) ~ 22.58%
under the scenario where the first book is placed back on the bookcase before randomly drawing the second book.
(72/95) * (28/95) ~ 22.34%
Baggage fees.
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.
- The expected revenue per passenger is $15.70.
- The standard deviation is $19.95.
standard deviation? Note any assumptions you make and if you think they are justified.
- The expected revenue for 120 passenger is 120 x 15.70 = $1,884.
- The standard deviation is $19.95.
- 1 standard deviation from the expected revenue for 120 passengers would be (15.70 + 19.95) x 120 = $4,278.
- The opposite direction of 1 standard deviation from the expected mean, it appears that the airline would lose (15.70 - 19.95 = -4.25) $4.25 per passenger. I’m not sure what this means. I rechecked my calculations three times, and the standard deviation is larger than the expected mean. So this would be -4.25 x 120 = -510.
Income and gender.
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.
The distribution of personal income appears to be symmetric with a peak around the 35,000 to 49,000 range.
The probability that a randomly chosen US resident makes less than $50,000 a year is 62.20%.
Note any assumptions you make.
The assumption I’m making is the proportion of male and female per category of income is consistent at 59% males and 41% females.
P(make less than 50K and female) = P(make less than 50k) x P(female) = .6220 x .41 = .2550 or 25.50%
The sample has 41% women. This means that .41 x .718 = .29 of the sample population who are women have income less than 50,000 a year.
So, So P(make less than 50k and female) = .6220 x .29 = 18.04%. So given this extra information regarding the female’s salary the chance of a randomly selecting someone who makes less than 50k and is also a female is actually less likely - from 25.50% to 18%.