MHB Wackerly/Mendenhall/Schaeffer Problem 2.19: Assignment of Probabilities

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the assignment of probabilities related to family incomes exceeding the 1991 median of $35,353. The sample space for three surveyed families includes eight combinations of income levels. The calculated probabilities for events A (at least two families exceeding the median), B (exactly two exceeding), and C (exactly one below) are based on equal likelihood, resulting in P(A) = 1/2, P(B) = 3/8, and P(C) = 1/8. However, the book provides different probabilities, suggesting a possible error in their calculations or a different method of assigning probabilities. The conversation concludes with a consensus that the initial calculations appear correct, indicating a potential discrepancy in the book's answers.
Ackbach
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
93
The Bureau of the Census reports that the median family income for all families in the United States during the year $1991$ was $\$35,353$. That is, half of all American families had incomes exceeding this amount and half had incomes equal to or below this amount (Wright 1992, p. 242). Suppose that three families are surveyed and that each one reveals whether their income exceeded $\$35,353$ in $1991$.

  • List the points in the sample space.
  • Identify the simple events in each of the following events:
    • At least two had incomes exceeding $\$35,353$.
    • Exactly two had incomes exceeding $\$35,353$.
    • Exactly one had income less than or equal to $\$35,353$.
  • Make use of the given information for the median to assign probabilities to the simple events and find $P(A), P(B),$ and $P(C)$.

Answer

  1. Let $E$ mean a family's income exceeds the median, and $B$ mean a family's income was below the median. Then the sample space consists of eight entries: $EEE, EEB, EBE, EBB, BEE, BEB, BBE, BBB$.
  2. We have that \begin{align*} A&=\{EEE, EEB, EBE, BEE\} \\ B&=\{EEB, EBE, BEE\} \\ C&=B. \end{align*}
  3. The probability of each simple event is equal, so $1/8$. $P(A)=1/2$, and $P(B)=P(C)=3/8$.

The problem is that the book's answer is $P(A)=11/16, P(B)=3/8,$ and $P(C)=1/4$. I'm thinking the book assigned different probabilities to the simple events. Why did the book do that? What would be the justification for doing so?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi Ackbach,

Your answers look right to me. So maybe there is an error in the book.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top