Statistics are supposed to make something easier to understand but when used in a misleading

fashion can trick the casual observer into believing something other than what the data shows. That
is, a misuse of statistics occurs when a statistical argument asserts a falsehood. In some cases,
the misuse may be accidental. In others, it is purposeful and for the gain of the perpetrator. When
the statistical reason involved is false or misapplied, this constitutes a statistical fallacy.
The false statistics trap can be quite damaging for the quest for knowledge. For example, in medical
science, correcting a falsehood may take decades and cost lives.
Misuses can be easy to fall into. Professional scientists, even mathematicians and professional
statisticians, can be fooled by even some simple methods, even if they are careful to check
everything. Scientists have been known to fool themselves with statistics due to lack of knowledge
of probability theory and lack of standardization of their tests.

Definition, limitations and context[edit]

One usable definition is: "Misuse of Statistics: Using numbers in such a manner that - either by
intent, or through ignorance or carelessness - the conclusions are unjustified or incorrect."[3] The
"numbers" include misleading graphics discussed elsewhere. The term is not commonly
encountered in statistics texts and no authoritative definition is known. It is a generalization of lying
with statistics which was richly described by examples from statisticians 60 years ago.
The definition confronts some problems (some are addressed by the source):[4]

1. Statistics usually produces probabilities; conclusions are provisional

2. The provisional conclusions have errors and error rates. Commonly 5% of the provisional
conclusions of significance testing are wrong
3. Statisticians are not in complete agreement on ideal methods
4. Statistical methods are based on assumptions which are seldom fully met
5. Data gathering is usually limited by ethical, practical and financial constraints.
How to Lie with Statistics acknowledges that statistics can legitimately take many forms. Whether
the statistics show that a product is "light and economical" or "flimsy and cheap" can be debated
whatever the numbers. Some object to the substitution of statistical correctness for moral leadership
(for example) as an objective. Assigning blame for misuses is often difficult because scientists,
pollsters, statisticians and reporters are often employees or consultants.
An insidious misuse(?) of statistics is completed by the listener/observer/audience/juror. The supplier
provides the "statistics" as numbers or graphics (or before/after photographs), allowing the
consumer to draw (possibly unjustified or incorrect) conclusions. The poor state of public statistical
literacy and the non-statistical nature of human intuition permits misleading without explicitly
producing faulty conclusions. The definition is weak on the responsibility of the consumer of
statistics.
A historian listed over 100 fallacies in a dozen categories including those of generalization and those
of causation.[5] A few of the fallacies are explicitly or potentially statistical including sampling,
statistical nonsense, statistical probability, false extrapolation, false interpolation and insidious
generalization. All of the technical/mathematical problems of applied probability would fit in the single
listed fallacy of statistical probability. Many of the fallacies could be coupled to a statistical analysis,
allowing the possibility of a false conclusion flowing from a blameless statistical analysis.
An example use of statistics is in the analysis of medical research. The process includes[6]
[7]
 experimental planning, conduct of the experiment, data analysis, drawing the logical conclusions
and presentation/reporting. The report is summarized by the popular press and by advertisers.
Misuses of statistics can result from problems at any step in the process. The statistical standards
ideally imposed on the scientific report are much different than those imposed on the popular press
and advertisers; however, cases exist of advertising disguised as science. The definition of the
misuse of statistics is weak on the required completeness of statistical reporting. The opinion is
expressed that newspapers must provide at least the source for the statistics reported.

Simple causes[edit]
Many misuses of statistics occur because

 The source is a subject matter expert, not a statistics expert.[8] The source may incorrectly
use a method or interpret a result.
 The source is a statistician, not a subject matter expert.[9] An expert should know when the
numbers being compared describe different things. Numbers change, as reality does not, when
legal definitions or political boundaries change.
 The subject being studied is not well defined.[10] While IQ tests are available and numeric it is
difficult to define what they measure; Intelligence is an elusive concept. Publishing "impact" has
the same problem.[11] A seemingly simple question about the number of words in the English
language immediately encounters questions about archaic forms, accounting for prefixes and
suffixes, multiple definitions of a word, variant spellings, dialects, fanciful creations (like
ectoplastistics from ectoplasm and statistics),[12] technical vocabulary...
 Data quality is poor.[13] Apparel provides an example. People have a wide range of sizes and
body shapes. It is obvious that apparel sizing must be multidimensional. Instead it is complex in
unexpected ways. Some apparel is sold by size only (with no explicit consideration of body
shape), sizes vary by country and manufacturer and some sizes are deliberately misleading.
While sizes are numeric, only the crudest of statistical analyses is possible using the size
numbers with care.
 The popular press has limited expertise and mixed motives.[14] If the facts are not
"newsworthy" (which may require exaggeration) they may not be published. The motives of
advertisers are even more mixed.
 "Politicians use statistics in the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts—for support rather
than illumination" - Andrew Lang (WikiQuote) "What do we learn from these two ways of looking
at the same numbers? We learn that a clever propagandist, right or left, can almost always find
a way to present the data on economic growth that seems to support her case. And we therefore
also learn to take any statistical analysis from a strongly political source with handfuls of
salt."[15] The term statistics originates from numbers generated for and utilized by the state. Good
government may require accurate numbers, but popular government may require supportive
numbers (not necessarily the same). "The use and misuse of statistics by governments is an
ancient art."[16]

Types of misuse[edit]
Discarding unfavorable data[edit]
All a company has to do to promote a neutral (useless) product is to find or conduct, for example, 40
studies with a confidence level of 95%. If the product is really useless, this would on average
produce one study showing the product was beneficial, one study showing it was harmful and thirty-
eight inconclusive studies (38 is 95% of 40). This tactic becomes more effective the more studies
there are available. Organizations that do not publish every study they carry out, such as tobacco
companies denying a link between smoking and cancer, anti-smoking advocacy groups and media
outlets trying to prove a link between smoking and various ailments, or miracle pill vendors, are likely
to use this tactic.
Ronald Fisher considered this issue in his famous lady tasting tea example experiment (from his
1935 book, The Design of Experiments). Regarding repeated experiments he said, "It would clearly
be illegitimate, and would rob our calculation of its basis, if unsuccessful results were not all brought
into the account."
Another term related to this concept is cherry picking.

Loaded questions[edit]
Main article: Loaded question
The answers to surveys can often be manipulated by wording the question in such a way as to
induce a prevalence towards a certain answer from the respondent. For example, in polling support
for a war, the questions:

 Do you support the attempt by the USA to bring freedom and democracy to other places in
the world?
 Do you support the unprovoked military action by the USA?
will likely result in data skewed in different directions, although they are both polling about the
support for the war. A better way of wording the question could be "Do you support the current US
military action abroad?" A still more nearly neutral way to put that question is "What is your view
about the current US military action abroad?" The point should be that the person being asked has
no way of guessing from the wording what the questioner might want to hear.
Another way to do this is to precede the question by information that supports the "desired" answer.
For example, more people will likely answer "yes" to the question "Given the increasing burden of
taxes on middle-class families, do you support cuts in income tax?" than to the question
"Considering the rising federal budget deficit and the desperate need for more revenue, do you
support cuts in income tax?"
The proper formulation of questions can be very subtle. The responses to two questions can vary
dramatically depending on the order in which they are asked.[17] "A survey that asked about
'ownership of stock' found that most Texas ranchers owned stock, though probably not the kind
traded on the New York Stock Exchange."[18]

Overgeneralization[edit]
Overgeneralization is a fallacy occurring when a statistic about a particular population is asserted to
hold among members of a group for which the original population is not a representative sample.
For example, suppose 100% of apples are observed to be red in summer. The assertion "All apples
are red" would be an instance of overgeneralization because the original statistic was true only of a
specific subset of apples (those in summer), which is not expected to be representative of the
population of apples as a whole.
A real-world example of the overgeneralization fallacy can be observed as an artifact of modern
polling techniques, which prohibit calling cell phones for over-the-phone political polls. As young
people are more likely than other demographic groups to lack a conventional "landline" phone, a
telephone poll that exclusively surveys responders of calls landline phones, may cause the poll
results to undersample the views of young people, if no other measures are taken to account for this
skewing of the sampling. Thus, a poll examining the voting preferences of young people using this
technique may not be a perfectly accurate representation of young peoples' true voting preferences
as a whole without overgeneralizing, because the sample used excludes young people that carry
only cell phones, who may or may not have voting preferences that differ from the rest of the
population.
Overgeneralization often occurs when information is passed through nontechnical sources, in
particular mass media.

Biased samples[edit]
Main article: Biased sample
Scientists have learned at great cost that gathering good experimental data for statistical analysis is
difficult. Example: The placebo effect (mind over body) is very powerful. 100% of subjects developed
a rash when exposed to an inert substance that was falsely called poison ivy while few developed a
rash to a "harmless" object that really was poison ivy.[19]Researchers combat this effect by double-
blind randomized comparative experiments. Statisticians typically worry more about the validity of
the data than the analysis. This is reflected in a field of study within statistics known as the design of
experiments.
Pollsters have learned at great cost that gathering good survey data for statistical analysis is difficult.
The selective effect of cellular telephones on data collection (discussed in the Overgeneralization
section) is one potential example; If young people with traditional telephones are not representative,
the sample can be biased. Sample surveys have many pitfalls and require great care in execution.
[20]
 One effort required almost 3000 telephone calls to get 1000 answers. The simple random sample
of the population "isn't simple and may not be random."[21]

Misreporting or misunderstanding of estimated error[edit]

If a research team wants to know how 300 million people feel about a certain topic, it would be
impractical to ask all of them. However, if the team picks a random sample of about 1000 people,
they can be fairly certain that the results given by this group are representative of what the larger
group would have said if they had all been asked.
This confidence can actually be quantified by the central limit theorem and other mathematical
results. Confidence is expressed as a probability of the true result (for the larger group) being within
a certain range of the estimate (the figure for the smaller group). This is the "plus or minus" figure
often quoted for statistical surveys. The probability part of the confidence level is usually not
mentioned; if so, it is assumed to be a standard number like 95%.
The two numbers are related. If a survey has an estimated error of ±5% at 95% confidence, it also
has an estimated error of ±6.6% at 99% confidence. ±% at 95% confidence is always ±% at 99%
confidence for a normally distributed population.
The smaller the estimated error, the larger the required sample, at a given confidence level.
at 95.4% confidence:
±1% would require 10,000 people.
±2% would require 2,500 people.
±3% would require 1,111 people.
±4% would require 625 people.
±5% would require 400 people.
±10% would require 100 people.
±20% would require 25 people.
±25% would require 16 people.
±50% would require 4 people.
People may assume, because the confidence figure is omitted, that there is a 100% certainty that
the true result is within the estimated error. This is not mathematically correct.
Many people may not realize that the randomness of the sample is very important. In practice, many
opinion polls are conducted by phone, which distorts the sample in several ways, including exclusion
of people who do not have phones, favoring the inclusion of people who have more than one phone,
favoring the inclusion of people who are willing to participate in a phone survey over those who
refuse, etc. Non-random sampling makes the estimated error unreliable.
On the other hand, people may consider that statistics are inherently unreliable because not
everybody is called, or because they themselves are never polled. People may think that it is
impossible to get data on the opinion of dozens of millions of people by just polling a few thousands.
This is also inaccurate.[a] A poll with perfect unbiased sampling and truthful answers has a
mathematically determined margin of error, which only depends on the number of people polled.
However, often only one margin of error is reported for a survey. When results are reported for
population subgroups, a larger margin of error will apply, but this may not be made clear. For
example, a survey of 1000 people may contain 100 people from a certain ethnic or economic group.
The results focusing on that group will be much less reliable than results for the full population. If the
margin of error for the full sample was 4%, say, then the margin of error for such a subgroup could
be around 13%.
There are also many other measurement problems in population surveys.
The problems mentioned above apply to all statistical experiments, not just population surveys.
Further information: Opinion poll and Statistical survey

False causality[edit]
Main article: Correlation does not imply causation
When a statistical test shows a correlation between A and B, there are usually six possibilities:

1. A causes B.
2. B causes A.
3. A and B both partly cause each other.
4. A and B are both caused by a third factor, C.
5. B is caused by C which is correlated to A.
6. The observed correlation was due purely to chance.
The sixth possibility can be quantified by statistical tests that can calculate the probability that the
correlation observed would be as large as it is just by chance if, in fact, there is no relationship
between the variables. However, even if that possibility has a small probability, there are still the five
others.
If the number of people buying ice cream at the beach is statistically related to the number of people
who drown at the beach, then nobody would claim ice cream causes drowning because it's obvious
that it isn't so. (In this case, both drowning and ice cream buying are clearly related by a third factor:
the number of people at the beach).
This fallacy can be used, for example, to prove that exposure to a chemical causes cancer. Replace
"number of people buying ice cream" with "number of people exposed to chemical X", and "number
of people who drown" with "number of people who get cancer", and many people will believe you. In
such a situation, there may be a statistical correlation even if there is no real effect. For example, if
there is a perception that a chemical site is "dangerous" (even if it really isn't) property values in the
area will decrease, which will entice more low-income families to move to that area. If low-income
families are more likely to get cancer than high-income families (this can happen for many reasons,
such as a poorer diet or less access to medical care) then rates of cancer will go up, even though
the chemical itself is not dangerous. It is believed[24] that this is exactly what happened with some of
the early studies showing a link between EMF (electromagnetic fields) from power lines and cancer.
[25]

In well-designed studies, the effect of false causality can be eliminated by assigning some people
into a "treatment group" and some people into a "control group" at random, and giving the treatment
group the treatment and not giving the control group the treatment. In the above example, a
researcher might expose one group of people to chemical X and leave a second group unexposed. If
the first group had higher cancer rates, the researcher knows that there is no third factor that
affected whether a person was exposed because he controlled who was exposed or not, and he
assigned people to the exposed and non-exposed groups at random. However, in many
applications, actually doing an experiment in this way is either prohibitively expensive, infeasible,
unethical, illegal, or downright impossible. For example, it is highly unlikely that an IRB would accept
an experiment that involved intentionally exposing people to a dangerous substance in order to test
its toxicity. The obvious ethical implications of such types of experiments limit researchers' ability to
empirically test causation.

Proof of the null hypothesis[edit]

In a statistical test, the null hypothesis () is considered valid until enough data proves it wrong.
Then  is rejected and the alternative hypothesis () is considered to be proven as correct. By chance
this can happen, although  is true, with a probability denoted  (the significance level). This can be
compared to the judicial process, where the accused is considered innocent () until proven guilty ()
beyond reasonable doubt ().
But if data does not give us enough proof to reject that , this does not automatically prove that  is
correct. If, for example, a tobacco producer wishes to demonstrate that its products are safe, it can
easily conduct a test with a small sample of smokers versus a small sample of non-smokers. It is
unlikely that any of them will develop lung cancer (and even if they do, the difference between the
groups has to be very big in order to reject ). Therefore, it is likely—even when smoking is
dangerous—that our test will not reject . If  is accepted, it does not automatically follow that smoking
is proven harmless. The test has insufficient power to reject , so the test is useless and the value of
the "proof" of  is also null.
This can—using the judicial analogue above—be compared with the truly guilty defendant who is
released just because the proof is not enough for a guilty verdict. This does not prove the
defendant's innocence, but only that there is not proof enough for a guilty verdict.
"...the null hypothesis is never proved or established, but it is possibly disproved, in the course of
experimentation. Every experiment may be said to exist only in order to give the facts a chance of
disproving the null hypothesis." (Fisher in The Design of Experiments) Many reasons for confusion
exist including the use of double negative logic and terminology resulting from the merger of Fisher's
"significance testing" (where the null hypothesis is never accepted) with "hypothesis testing" (where
some hypothesis is always accepted).

Confusing statistical significance with practical significance[edit]

Statistical significance is a measure of probability; practical significance is a measure of effect.[26] A
baldness cure is statistically significant if a sparse peach-fuzz usually covers the previously naked
scalp. The cure is practically significant when a hat is no longer required in cold weather and the
barber asks how much to take off the top. The bald want a cure that is both statistically and
practically significant; It will probably work and if it does, it will have a big hairy effect. Scientific
publication often requires only statistical significance. This has led to complaints (for the last 50
years) that statistical significance testing is a misuse of statistics.[27]

Data dredging[edit]
Main article: Data dredging
Data dredging is an abuse of data mining. In data dredging, large compilations of data are examined
in order to find a correlation, without any pre-defined choice of a hypothesis to be tested. Since the
required confidence interval to establish a relationship between two parameters is usually chosen to
be 95% (meaning that there is a 95% chance that the relationship observed is not due to random
chance), there is a thus a 5% chance of finding a correlation between any two sets of completely
random variables. Given that data dredging efforts typically examine large datasets with many
variables, and hence even larger numbers of pairs of variables, spurious but apparently statistically
significant results are almost certain to be found by any such study.
Note that data dredging is a valid way of finding a possible hypothesis but that hypothesis must then
be tested with data not used in the original dredging. The misuse comes in when that hypothesis is
stated as fact without further validation.
"You cannot legitimately test a hypothesis on the same data that first suggested that hypothesis. The
remedy is clear. Once you have a hypothesis, design a study to search specifically for the effect you
now think is there. If the result of this test is statistically significant, you have real evidence at last."[28]

Data manipulation[edit]
Informally called "fudging the data," this practice includes selective reporting (see also publication
bias) and even simply making up false data.
Examples of selective reporting abound. The easiest and most common examples involve choosing
a group of results that follow a pattern consistent with the preferred hypothesiswhile ignoring other
results or "data runs" that contradict the hypothesis.
Psychic researchers have long disputed studies showing people with ESP ability. Critics accuse
ESP proponents of only publishing experiments with positive results and shelving those that show
negative results. A "positive result" is a test run (or data run) in which the subject guesses a hidden
card, etc., at a much higher frequency than random chance.[citation needed]
Scientists, in general, question the validity of study results that cannot be reproduced by other
investigators. However, some scientists refuse to publish their data and methods.[29]
Data manipulation is a serious issue/consideration in the most honest of statistical analyses.
Outliers, missing data and non-normality can all adversely affect the validity of statistical analysis. It
is appropriate to study the data and repair real problems before analysis begins. "[I]n any scatter
diagram there will be some points more or less detached from the main part of the cloud: these
points should be rejected only for cause."[30]

Other fallacies[edit]
Pseudoreplication is a technical error associated with analysis of variance. Complexity hides the fact
that statistical analysis is being attempted on a single sample (N=1). For this degenerate case the
variance cannot be calculated (division by zero).
The gambler's fallacy assumes that an event for which a future likelihood can be measured had the
same likelihood of happening once it has already occurred. Thus, if someone had already tossed 9
coins and each has come up heads, people tend to assume that the likelihood of a tenth toss also
being heads is 1023 to 1 against (which it was before the first coin was tossed) when in fact the
chance of the tenth head is 50% (assuming the coin is unbiased).
The prosecutor's fallacy[31] has led, in the UK, to the false imprisonment of women for murder when
the courts were given the prior statistical likelihood of a woman's 3 children dying from Sudden Infant
Death Syndrome as being the chances that their already dead children died from the syndrome. This
led to statements from Roy Meadow that the chance they had died of Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome were extremely small (one in millions). The courts then handed down convictions in spite
of the statistical inevitability that a few women would suffer this tragedy. The convictions were
eventually overturned (and Meadow was subsequently struck off the U.K. Medical Register for giving
“erroneous” and “misleading” evidence, although this was later reversed by the courts).[32] Meadow's
calculations were irrelevant to these cases, but even if they were, using the same methods of
calculation would have shown that the odds against two cases of infanticide were even smaller (one
in billions).[32]
The ludic fallacy. Probabilities are based on simple models that ignore real (if remote) possibilities.
Poker players do not consider that an opponent may draw a gun rather than a card. The insured
(and governments) assume that insurers will remain solvent, but see AIG and systemic risk.

Other types of misuse[edit]

Other misuses include comparing apples and oranges, using the wrong average,[33] regression
toward the mean,[34] and the umbrella phrase garbage in, garbage out.[35] Some statistics are simply
irrelevant to an issue.[36]

 Use of statistics in real life

1. 1. CLASS :- X LOTUS GROUP NO:- VI
2. 2. Abhay Ashish Chirag Harsh Priyanka Sachin
3. 3. STATISTICS It is a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis,
interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data. Also with prediction and forecasting
based on data. Statistics form a key basis tool in business and manufacturing as well. It is
used to understand measurement systems variability, control processes for summarizing
data, and to make data-driven decisions. Some fields of inquiry use applied statistics so
extensively that they have specialized terminology. Ex- engineering statistics, social
statistics, statistics in sports, etc…
4. 4. ORIGIN The word ‘statistics’ and ‘statistical’ are derived from the Latin word status, means
political state.
5. 5. Statistics is concerned with scientific method for collecting and presenting, organizing and
summarizing and analyzing data as well as deriving valid conclusions and making
reasonable decisions on the basis of this analysis.
6. 6. Statistical methods date back at least to the 5th century BC. Some scholars pinpoint the
origin of statistics to 1663, with the publication of Natural and Political Observations by John
Graunt. Early applications of statistical thinking revolved around the needs of states to base
policy on demographic and economic data. The scope of the discipline of statistics
broadened in the early 19th century to include the collection and analysis of data in general.
Today, statistics is widely employed in government, business, and natural and social
sciences. Blaise Pascal, an early pioneer on the mathematics of probability.
7. 7. Its mathematical foundations were laid in the 17th century with the development of the
probability theory by Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat. Mathematical probability theory
arose from the study of games of chance, although the concept of probability was already
examined in medieval law and by philosophers such as Juan Caramuel. The method of least
squares was first described by Adrien-Marie Legendre in 1805. Pierre de Fermat
8. 8. At the turn of the century Sir Francis Galton and Karl Pearson transformed statistics into a
rigorous mathematical discipline used for analysis, not just in science, but in industry and
politics as well. Galton's contributions to the field included introducing the concepts of
standard deviation, correlation, regression and the application of these methods to the study
of the variety of human characteristics Pearson developed the Correlation coefficient,
defined as a product-moment, the method of moments for the fitting of distributions to
samples and the Pearson's system of continuous curves, among many other things. Karl
Pearson, a founder of mathematical statistics.
9. 9. Today, statistics is widely employed in government, business, and natural and social
sciences. Today, statistical methods are applied in all fields that involve decision making, for
making accurate inferences from a collated body of data and for making decisions in the face
of uncertainty based on statistical methodology. The use of modern computers has
expedited large-scale statistical computations, and has also made possible new methods
that are impractical to perform manually. Statistics continues to be an area of active
research, for example on the problem of how to analyze big data.
10. 10. INDUSTRIES AND BUSINESS Report of early sales & comparison others. It shows
where the factory or its sales lack and where they are good AGRICULTURE What amount of
crops are grown this year in comparison to previous year or in comparison to required
amount of crop for the country Quality and size of grains grown due to use of different
fertilizer.
11. 11. FORESTERY How much growth has been occurred in area under forest or how much
forest has been depleted in last 5 years? How much different species of flora and fauna have
increased or decreased in last 5 years? EDUCATION Money spend on girls education in
comparison to boys education? Increase in no. of girl students who seated in who Seated for
different exams? Comparison for result for last 10 years.
12. 12. ECOLOGICAL STUDIES Comparison of increasing impact of pollution on global
warming? Increasing effect of nuclear reactors on environment? MEDICAL STUDIES No. of
new diseases grown in last 10 year. Increase in no. of patients for a particular disease.
SPORTS Used to compare run rates of to different teams. Used to compare to different
players.
13. 13. Nowadays graphs are used almost everywhere. In Stock Market, graphs are used to
determine the profit margins of Stock. There is always a graph showing how prices have
changed over time , unemployment figures , inflation , exchange rates , NASA space stories ,
global warming statistics , mortgage lending figures , house price comparisons , inflation ,
budget forecasts. taxation or pension forecasts, Food prices , and how they have changed
over time etc. USE OF GRAPHS
14. 14. Graphs are used to explain large amounts of data Medical graphs are used to collect
information about patients, such as graphs showing a 1 to 10 pain scale for patients after
surgery. These charts can help doctors and nurses quickly assess the effectiveness of pain
medications and help doctors determine when to adjust medications as needed for a
patient's comfort. In business, graphs are used to collect and present data used to evaluate
the effectiveness of sales campaigns and to assess other aspects of daily business
functions, such as comparing expenses to revenues earned. it is used in rating the climate,
indicate money and sales chart, stock rates and other financial stuff. it is used to rate annual
sales figure. it is used in daily news papers and magazine. it used in computer networking
and to rate our savings in year. it is used in surveys, monthly budget, in presentations
15. 15. The mean of a number of observations is the sum of the values of all the observations
divided by the total number of observations. It is denoted by the symbol x , read as ‘x bar’.
Mean is used as one of the comparing properties of statistics. It is defined as the average of
all the clarifications.
16. 16. It helps teachers to see the average marks of the students. It is used in factories, for the
authorities to recognize whether the benefits of the workers is continued or not. It is also
used to contrast the salaries of the workers. To calculate the average speed of anything. It is
also used by the government to find the income or expenses of any person. The average
daily expenditure in a month of a family gives the concept of MEAN. If in a tour, the total
money spent by10 students is Rs. 500. Then the average money spent by each student is
Rs. 50. Here Rs. 50 is the mean.
17. 17. The mode is that value of the observation which occurs most frequently, i.e., an
observation with the maximum frequency is called the mode.
18. 18. The no. of games succeeded by any team of players. The frequency of the need of
infants. Used to find the number of the mode is also seen in calculation of the wages, in the
patients going to the hospitals, the mode of travel etc. A shopkeeper, selling shirts, keeps
more stock of that size of shirt which has more sale. Here the size of that shirt is the mode
among other . A shopkeeper keeps more stock of a particular type of shoe which has more
sale. Here the concept of MODE applies.
19. 19. The median is that value of the given number of observations, which divides it into
exactly two parts.
20. 20. It is used to measure the distribution of the earnings Used to find the players height e.g.
football players. To find the middle age from the class students. Also used to find the poverty
line. If 15 people of different heights are standing height-wise, then the middle man’s height
is the MEDIAN height. If you have 25 people lined up next to each other by age, the median
age will be the age of the person in the very middle. Here the age of the middle person is the
median