Section A
1 (a)
(Total 8 marks)
(i) False. For sufficiently large n, the CLT justifies assuming the sample mean to be normally
distributed.
(ii) False. Least squares estimation minimises the sum of squared deviations/residuals.
(iii) False. The power of a test is 1 P (Type II error).
(iv) True. Correlation measures the strength of a linear relationship.
1 (b)
(Total 6 marks)
(i)
Pi=4
= 32 + 12 + 72 = 59
(ii)
Pi=3
2) = (2 2) + (3 2) + (1 2) = 0
(iii)
Pi=5
2
i=2 xi
i=1 (xi
i=2 2xi
1 (c)
= (2 3) + (2 1) + (2 7) + (2 9) = 40
(Total 2 marks)
P
xi
= 7,
19
1 (d)
yi
= 5.1,
25
P
=
P
x i + yi
(19 7) + (25 5.1)
=
= 5.92
19 + 25
44
(Total 8 marks)
(i) P (at least one odd #) = 1 P (no odd #s) = 1 P ((2, 2) (2, 4) (2, 6) (4, 2) (4, 4)
2
9
(4, 6) (6, 2) (6, 4) (6, 6)) = 1 36
= 1 632 = 27
36 = 0.75
Extending the pattern, P (at least one odd #) = 1 P (no odd #s) = 1
(ii) Let D = defective. Hence P (D) = P (D|A) P (A) + P (D|B) P (B)
So P (D) = (0.1 0.1) + (0.05 0.9) = 0.055
34
64
= 0.9375
P (B|D) =
1 (e)
(Total 8 marks)
(i) A test which is significant at the 1% level can be thought of as highly significant and the
data provide strong evidence to support rejection of H0 .
(ii) When significant at the 10% level but not the 5% level there is, at best, weak evidence in
support of rejection of H0 . Re-sampling/increasing n would be recommended.
(iii) H0 : = 0.01, H1 : > 0.01 need H0 and H1
Test statistic: Z =
p=
3
144
qp0.01
(1)
n
= 0.0208
z = 1.306
Only 1.306 is weakly significant at the 10% level, so insufficient evidence to reject H0 ,
hence no evidence to suggest that more than 1% of transcations contain errors.
1 (f )
(Total 4 marks)
1.6458.5 2
1.5
= 86.89
n must be an integer, so n = 87
1 (g)
(Total 6 marks)
1222
6 )
3722
6 )
N 22, 36 . P (21 X
23) = P (2.5 Z 2.5) = (2.5) (2.5) =
(iii) X
225
0.9938 0.0062 = 0.9876
1 (h)
(Total 4 marks)
1 (i)
(Total 4 marks)
Section B
2 (a)
(Total 13 marks)
Oij /Eij
Gender
Male
Female
Total
Test statistic, T =
Party Identification
Democrat
Independent
Republican
279 / 261.4163 73 / 70.6531 225 / 244.9306
165 / 182.5837 47 / 49.3469 191 / 171.0694
444
120
416
i,j
(Oij Eij )2
Eij
Total
577
403
980
and t = 7.01
q p
(1)
n
0.460.41
q
0.410.59
416
= 2.07
2 (b)
(Total 12 marks)
Guideline suggestions:
Random sample design specified in question, so the student should mention random
sampling techniques.
Should specify that each unit in a random sample has a known (though not necessarily equal)
4
3 (a)
(Total 12 marks)
10
8
6
4
0
Frequency density
12
Forecast of economists, %
3 (b)
(Total 13 marks)
(i) Correct calculation of difference between the means: 7.0 5.1 = 1.9. Do not accept
5.1 7.0 = 1.9 as question specifies x y
Correct standard error computation: 0.4501
Use t distribution with nx + ny 2 = 42 degrees of freedom
Confidence interval formula for observed sample means x
and y:
s
1
1
+
x
y t/2,nx +ny 2 s
nx ny
Correct t value: t42 value = 2.018, rounded to t40 = 2.021 from tables
Correct C.I. : (0.9903, 2.8097) if t40 used
Since the confidence interval does not include 0, this does not support the view that
there is no true difference between the population means.
y
1
s2p n + n1
1
q 7.05.1
1
1
2.187( 19
+ 25
)
= 4.22
4 (a)
(Total 10 marks)
i. H0 : A = Z vs. H1 : A 6= Z
Compute sample proportions: pA = 0.6, pZ = 0.55
Test statistic value: z = 0.4529
For = 0.05, two-tailed critical z-value = 1.96
Hence result is not significant and we do not reject H0 . There is no evidence to
suggest there exists a difference in the population proportions
ii. If nA = nZ = 100, only the standard error is affected
Standard error now 0.0698 resulting in a test statistic value of 0.05/0.0698 = 0.7161,
again not statistically significant
iii. Standard error is 0.0349, hence z = 0.05/0.0349 = 1.432, still not significant
4 (b)
(Total 15 marks)
Divorce rate
x
x
x
x
x
40
45
50
55
Mobility rate
= P 2
= 0.1685
x n
x2
= y x
= 2.4893
Correct parameter estimates
Hence the estimated regression line is y = 2.4893 + 0.1685x
For x = 40, the expected divorce rate is 2.4893 + 0.1685(40) = 4.25
iii. Use of divorce rate as the response variable is reasonable due to the likely disruptive effect
moving home may have on relationships. (Or similar)
v. Using mobility as the dependent variable would imply that the divorce rate is the driver
of mobility.
Some sensible comment about the feasibility of this argument.