frequency distribution
4 results
frequency distribution - frequency measurement of various outcomes
A random sample of 25 customers was chosen in CCP MiniMart between 3:00 and 4:00 PM on a Friday afteA random sample of 25 customers was chosen in CCP MiniMart between 3:00 and 4:00 PM on a Friday afternoon. The frequency distribution below shows the distribution for checkout time (in minutes).
Checkout Time (in minutes) | Frequency | Relative Frequency
1.0 - 1.9 | 2 | ?
2.0 - 2.9 | 8 | ?
3.0 - 3.9 | ? | ?
4.0 - 5.9 | 5 | ?
Total | 25 | ?
(a) Complete the frequency table with frequency and relative frequency.
(b) What percentage of the checkout times was less than 3 minutes?
(c)In what class interval must the median lie? Explain your answer.
(d) Assume that the largest observation in this dataset is 5.8. Suppose this observation were incorrectly recorded as 8.5 instead of 5.8. Will the mean increase, decrease, or remain the same? Will the median increase, decrease or remain the same? Why?
(a)
[B]Checkout Time (in minutes) | Frequency | Relative Frequency
1.0 - 1.9 | 2 | 2/25
2.0 - 2.9 | 8 | 8/25
3.0 - 3.9 | 10 (since 25 - 5 + 8 + 2) = 10 | 10/25
4.0 - 5.9 | 5 | 5/25
Total | 25 | ?[/B]
(b) (2 + 8)/25 = 10/25 = [B]40%[/B]
c) [B]3.0 - 3.9[/B] since 2 + 8 + 10 + 5 = 25 and 13 is the middle value which occurs in the 3.0 - 3.9 interval
(d) [B]Mean increases[/B] since it's a higher value than usual. Median would not change as the median is the most frequent distribution and assuming the 5.8 is only recorded once.
Basic StatisticsFree Basic Statistics Calculator - Given a number set, and an optional probability set, this calculates the following statistical items:
Expected Value
Mean = μ
Variance = σ2
Standard Deviation = σ
Standard Error of the Mean
Skewness
Mid-Range
Average Deviation (Mean Absolute Deviation)
Median
Mode
Range
Pearsons Skewness Coefficients
Entropy
Upper Quartile (hinge) (75th Percentile)
Lower Quartile (hinge) (25th Percentile)
InnerQuartile Range
Inner Fences (Lower Inner Fence and Upper Inner Fence)
Outer Fences (Lower Outer Fence and Upper Outer Fence)
Suspect Outliers
Highly Suspect Outliers
Stem and Leaf Plot
Ranked Data Set
Central Tendency Items such as Harmonic Mean and
Geometric Mean and Mid-Range
Root Mean Square
Weighted Average (Weighted Mean)
Frequency Distribution
Successive Ratio
Frequency Distribution TableFree Frequency Distribution Table Calculator - Determines the classes and frequency distribution using the 2 to k rule.
The first significant digit in any number must be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. It was discovered tThe first significant digit in any number must be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9. It was discovered that first digits do not occur with equal frequency. Probabilities of occurrence to the first digit in a number are shown in the accompanying table. The probability distribution is now known as Benford's Law. For example, the following distribution represents the first digits in 231 allegedly fraudulent checks written to a bogus company by an employee attempting to embezzle funds from his employer.
Digit, Probability
1, 0.301
2, 0.176
3, 0.125
4, 0.097
5, 0.079
6, 0.067
7, 0.058
8, 0.051
9, 0.046
[B][U]Fradulent Checks[/U][/B]
Digit, Frequency
1, 36
2, 32
3, 45
4, 20
5, 24
6, 36
7, 15
8, 16
9, 7
Complete parts (a) and (b).
(a) Using the level of significance α = 0.05, test whether the first digits in the allegedly fraudulent checks obey Benford's Law. Do the first digits obey the Benford's Law?
Yes or No
Based on the results of part (a), could one think that the employe is guilty of embezzlement?
Yes or No
Show frequency percentages
Digit Fraud Probability Benford Probability
1 0.156 0.301
2 0.139 0.176
3 0.195 0.125
4 0.087 0.097
5 0.104 0.079
6 0.156 0.067
7 0.065 0.058
8 0.069 0.051
9 0.03 0.046
Take the difference between the 2 values, divide it by the Benford's Value. Sum up the squares to get the Test Stat of 2.725281277
Critical Value Excel: =CHIINV(0.95,8) = 2.733
Since test stat is less than critical value, we cannot reject, so [B]YES[/B], it does obey Benford's Law and [B]NO[/B], there is not enough evidence to suggest the employee is guilty of embezzlement.