02 Mar 2024

Posted on:

14 Jan 2023

1

question number 5

I think there's faults in Frequency distribution table (Cumulative frequency)

4 answers ( 0 marked as helpful)
Instructor
Posted on:

17 Jan 2023

0

Hi Hammou,
Good to hear from you. Could you elaborate, please as we need to make the appropriate changes if that is the case.
Best,
Ned

Posted on:

18 Jan 2023

1

Arranging the frequency from top to least then you create cumulative frequency like that I learn in the lesson but in the exam you don't do the same.

Posted on:

21 Jan 2023

1

SPOILER: one of the answers on the practice exams is given here, so don't read it if you want to try yourself

I think so too, if you add all the numbers in the cumulative frequency column, you get 97% --> meaning that the row with the missing frequency should equal to the remain 3%. However, the official solution to question 5 = 4%, which I also think is a mistake...

Posted on:

02 Mar 2024

0

@Thomas Vercamer

The cumulative frequency and relative frequency are rounded off to the nearest integer for our reference.That is not the accurate output. i.e, The relative frequency of California is 76.5% instead of 77% and relative frequency of Virginia is 2.6 instead of 3..

Likewise since every value is round to the nearest integer as clearly mentioned in the question itself for our convenience, the method you followed gives wrong answer.

It is to encourage us to apply the proper procedure to get the answer and to avoid taking shortcuts to find the answer which will probably give wrong answers like this.

Hope I helped !