Ten public school students had the following scores on their standardized reading test (scores are out of 500): 410, 450, 435, 375, 395, 255, 290, 105

Trent Carpenter 2020-11-16 Answered
Ten public school students had the following scores on their standardized reading test (scores are out of 500):
410, 450, 435, 375, 395, 255, 290, 105, 410, 385
(a) Compute the mean, median, and mode of this data.
(b) Compute the first and third quartiles for the data.
(c) What do you think is the best measure of center: the mean, median, or mode of the data? Justify your answer.
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Expert Answer

Corben Pittman
Answered 2020-11-17 Author has 83 answers

Step 1
It is an important part of statistics . It is widely used .
Mean is defined as the average.
Median is defined as the middl
emost value of the observation such that half of the value lies above it and half below it .
Mode is defined as that value which has the maximum frequency .
Step 2
a)
R CODE :
x=c(410, 450, 435, 375, 395, 255, 290, 105, 410, 385)
mean(x)
median(x)
OUTPUT :
x=c(410, 450, 435, 375, 395, 255, 290, 105, 410, 385)
mean(x)
[1]351
median(x)
[1]390
There is no mode as all the values have same frequency equal to 1
The required mean is 351 and median is 390
b)
R CODE :
quantile(x,0.25)
quantile(x,0.75)
OUTPUT :
quantile(x,0.25)
25%
311.25
quantile(x,0.75)
75%
410
The first quartile of the data is 311.25
The third quartile of the data is 410
c)
Median is the best measure of central tendency as it tells the location of the central value .

Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Relevant Questions

asked 2021-02-23
Interpreting z-scores: Complete the following statements using your knowledge about z-scores.
a. If the data is weight, the z-score for someone who is overweight would be
-positive
-negative
-zero
b. If the data is IQ test scores, an individual with a negative z-score would have a
-high IQ
-low IQ
-average IQ
c. If the data is time spent watching TV, an individual with a z-score of zero would
-watch very little TV
-watch a lot of TV
-watch the average amount of TV
d. If the data is annual salary in the U.S and the population is all legally employed people in the U.S., the z-scores of people who make minimum wage would be
-positive
-negative
-zero
asked 2021-09-19
Consider the two samples of data from the McKenzie School. The numbers represent the time in seconds that it took each child to cover a distance of 50 meters. Girls’ Times: 8.3, 8.6, 9.5, 9.5, 9.6, 9.8, 9.9, 9.9, 10.0, 10.0, 10.0, 10.1, 10.3, 10.5 Boys’ Times: 7.9, 8.0, 8.2, 8.2, 8.4, 8.6, 8.8, 9.1, 9.3, 9.5, 9.8, 9.8, 10.0, 10.1, 10.3. Based on the sample means, do you conclude that the distributions of times from the boys’ population and girls’ population are different? Explain.
asked 2022-06-12
How to interpret a too small chi-square χ 2 value?
I use the Chi-square (i.e., χ 2 ) goodness-of-fit test to measure the distance between chunks of data and a theoretical distribution.
For most of the data being tested the results make sense. I got from time to time unusual results, which correspond to very small values (i.e., between 10 and 100). The sample size is not the problem, there is at least 5 elements for each symbol.
After a careful analysis of the observed data, the frequency of each symbol in the data being tested is very close to the theoretical distribution as the χ 2 value suggest.
But it seems to be too perfect for me. It is unlikely according to the chi-square distribution function that a given value would occur (i.e., z 0.0001 ).
Should I reject the null hypothesis because the data is too good to be true ?
I did not find clear explanations or I missed something.
How to interpret unlikely values in the left tail of the chi-square distribution ?
asked 2021-09-15

Simplify the following expression:
(23y)+(6+8y)

asked 2022-06-15
Consider the wave equation with initial data:
u t t ( t , x ) + u x x ( t , x ) = 0
u ( 0 , x ) = u 0 ( x )
u t ( 0 , x ) = u 1 ( x )
Hadamard showed that this problem is ill-posed: there exist large solutions with arbitrarily small initial data. For instance, if we take u ( t , x ) = a ω sinh ( ω t ) sin ( ω x ), then u 0 ( x ) = 0 and u 1 ( x ) = a ω ω sin ( ω x ), then we can make u(t,x) grow arbitrarily fast while keeping u 0 and u 1 small.
Tweaking this construction, it is not hard to see that for any given k and ϵ > 0, we can construct initial data such that
| | u 0 | | + | | u 0 ( 1 ) | | + + | | u 0 ( k ) | | + | | u 1 | | + | | u 1 ( 1 ) | | + + | | u 1 ( k ) | | < ϵ
and | | u ( ϵ , x ) | | > 1 ϵ This can be interpreted as saying that the problem is ill-posed even in a Holder sense.
My question is: can one construct an example of a solution u(t,x) with initial data u 0 ( x ) and u 1 ( x ) such that
i = 0 | | u 0 ( i ) | | + | | u 1 ( i ) | | < ϵ
asked 2022-05-16
Relating factors of a polynomial over GF(q) and G F ( q m )
I am reading Richard Blahut's book "Algebraic Codes for Data Transmission" and have come to an impasse in my understanding in section 5.3. In this section, the author wants to relate the factors of a polynomial over GF(q) and the factors of that same polynomial over a GF-extension field G F ( q m ).
There is a good example in the book that I will use here to ask my question. Specifically the GF fields in this example use q=2 and m=4, so there is the prime field GF(2) and the extension field G F ( 2 4 ). The polynomial to be factored over both of these fields is one with particularly special properties, of the form x q m 1 1. So, the polynomial for this example is x 15 1.
The author first factors x 15 1 over GF(2). The prime factors are:
x 15 1 = ( x + 1 ) ( x 2 + x + 1 ) ( x 4 + x + 1 ) ( x 4 + x 3 + 1 ) ( x 4 + x 3 + x 2 + x + 1 )
This factorization over GF(2) makes sense to me and I can easily verify it in MATLAB.
The author then chooses two of the above prime factors and forms a new polynomial:
g ( x ) = ( x 4 + x 3 + 1 ) ( x 4 + x 3 + x 2 + x + 1 ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1
The above multiplication over GF(2) also makes sense to me and I can easily verify it in MATLAB.
However, the author then changes to analyzing the same polynomial g ( x ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1 in the extension field G F ( 2 4 ). It seems to be implied that because G F ( 2 4 ) in an extension field of GF(2), and because the polynomial in question is comprised of prime factors (over GF(2)) of the special composite polynomial x15−1, that this switch to the extension field G F ( 2 4 ) is justified.
To analyze g ( x ) in the extension field, we agree to represent the 16 elements of the extension field as the usual powers of the primitive field element alpha:
0 , 1 , α , α 2 , α 3 , α 4 , α 5 , α 6 , α 7 , α 8 , α 9 , α 10 , α 11 , α 12 , α 13 , α 14
The author claims that the aforementioned polynomial g ( x ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1 has roots/zeroes over
g ( α 3 ) = 0
I am completely unable to make sense of this claim. It raises numerous questions in my mind, and the most basic of these questions is, how can I verify that g ( α ) = 0 and that g ( α 3 ) = 0?
To show how I've tried to verify that g ( α ) = 0 for g ( x ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1, the author uses the following detailed representation of the elements of extension field G F ( 2 4 ). Of course to describe the elements of any GF extension field, we must choose an irreducible polynomial for the reducing modulus, and throughout the book the author uses the modulus α 4 + α + 1, yielding the 16 field elements:
0 = α 1 = α 0 α 1 = α α 2 = α 2 α 3 = α 3 α 4 = α + 1 α 5 = α 2 + α α 6 = α 3 + α 2 α 7 = α 3 + α + 1 α 8 = α 2 + 1 α 9 = α 3 + α α 10 = α 2 + α + 1 α 11 = α 3 + α 2 + α α 12 = α 3 + α 2 + α + 1 α 13 = α 3 + α 2 + 1 α 14 = α 3 + 1
Given the above element representation of G F ( 2 4 ), we return to the enigmatic claim that for g(x)=x8+x4+x2+x+1, there is the root g(α)=0 over GF(24). We have:
g ( x ) = x 8 + x 4 + x 2 + x + 1
So it seems that for g(x)=x8+x4+x2+x+1 polynomial, g ( α ) 0.
Can anyone show me how to demonstrate that α (as a GF(16) element) is a root of a polynomial that was computed over GF(2)?
If it would be helpful, I can scan the 3 pages of the book and you can see the author's own words for the above ideas. He throws this information at you very quickly, so it's fairly difficult for me (as a non-mathematician) to follow.
asked 2022-05-23
Bookkeeping is mainly concerned with
a. All options are correct.
b. Interpreting the data.
c. Recording the economic activities.
d. Designing the systems for recording, classifying and summarizing.