ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY

Submitted By: Sara Pervez

Roll No: 0000054215

Book Name: Statistics for Management

Book Code: 8409

Assignment No: 1

Q. 1 There are a number of possible measures of sales performance, including how consistent a salesperson is in meeting
established sales goals. The data that follow represent the percentage of goal met by each of three salespeople over the last 5
years.
Patricia 88 68 89 92 103
John 76 88 90 86 79
Frank 104 88 118 88 123
(a) Which salesperson is the most consistent?
Answer:
We can find the consistency of any thing by taking average of it.
average = total goals percentage/5
average of Patricia= (88+68+89+92+103)/5
average of Patricia = 440/5 = 88%
average of John = (76+88+90+86+79)/5
average of John= 419/5 = 83.8%
average of Frank= (104+88+118+88+123)/5
average of Frank = 521/5 = 104.2%

(b) Comment on the adequacy of using a measure of consistency along with percentage of sales goal met to evaluate sales
performance.
Answer:
The highest average is of Frank which means is most consistent.
 (c) Can you suggest a more appropriate alternative measure of consistency?
Answer:
Consistency of information can be seen in numerous ways including steadiness, consistency and consistency. Commonplace
proportions of information consistency incorporate measurements like the reach (i.e., the biggest worth short the littlest worth
among a circulation of information), the change (i.e., the amount of the squared deviations of each worth in a conveyance from the
mean worth in a dissemination partitioned by the quantity of values in a dispersion) and the standard deviation (i.e., the square
foundation of the fluctuation). In the event that one is assessing the consistency of information attracted an example from a
populace, the standard mistake of the mean (i.e., the standard deviation of the tested populace partitioned by the square base of
the example size) is frequently inspected. At last, the consistency of information created by instruments and tests is regularly
estimated by assessing the dependability of acquired scores. Dependability gauges incorporate test-retest coefficients, split-half
measures and Kuder-Richardson Recipe lists.

Estimation blunders can be of two kinds: irregular mistake and efficient blunder. Irregular mistake is the blunder that can be
credited to a bunch of obscure and wild outside factors that haphazardly impact a few perceptions however not others. For
instance, during the hour of estimation, a few respondents might be feeling more pleasant than others, which might impact how
they answer the estimation things. For example, respondents feeling more pleasant may answer all the more decidedly to develop
like confidence, fulfillment, and joy than the people who are feeling poor. Be that as it may, it is unimaginable to expect to guess
which subject in sort of temperament or control for the impact of mind-set in research studies. In like manner, at a hierarchical
level, assuming we are estimating firm execution, administrative or natural changes might influence the presentation of certain
organizations in a noticed example however not others. Thus, arbitrary blunder is viewed as "clamor" in estimation and by and large
overlooked.

Orderly mistake is a blunder that is presented by factors that methodically influence all perceptions of a develop across a whole
example in a deliberate way. In our past illustration of firm execution, since the new monetary emergency affected the
presentation of monetary firms excessively more than some other sort of firms, for example, assembling or administration firms,
in the event that our example comprised exclusively of monetary firms, we might expect a methodical decrease in execution of all
organizations in our example because of the monetary emergency. Not at all like irregular blunder, which might be positive negative,
or zero, across perception in an example, efficient mistakes will in general be reliably certain or negative across the whole example.
Consequently, methodical blunder is here and there viewed as "predisposition" in estimation and ought to be revised.

Q. 2 At a soup kitchen, a social worker gathers the following data. Of those visiting the kitchen, 59 percent are men, 32 percent
are alcoholics, and 21 percent are male alcoholics. What is the probability that a random male visitor to the kitchen is an
alcoholic?

2
Answer:
P (male) = 59% = 0.59
P (male & Alcoholic) = 21% = 0.21
P (Alcoholic / male) = P (male & Alcoholic) / P (male)
P (Alcoholic / male) = 0.21 / 0.59 = 0.356
Therefore, probability for male visitor to kitchen is an alcoholic is 0.356.

Q. 3 The Nobb Door Company manufactures doors for recreational vehicles. It has two conflicting objectives: It wants to build
doors as small as possible to save on material costs, but to preserve its good reputation with the public, it feels obligated to
manufacture doors that are tall enough for 95 percent of the adult population in the United States to pass through without
stooping. In order to determine the height at which to manufacture doors, Noob is willing to assume that the height of adults
in America is normally distributed with mean 73 inches and standard deviation 6 inches. How tall should Noob’s doors be?
Answer:
Percentile Value = μ + zб
where:
μ - Mean
μ - Meanz - z-score from z table that corresponds to percentile value
б - Standard deviation

Find:
We find the height of 95th percentile door
Given:
We given that
Mean = 73 inches
standard deviation = 6
To answer this, we must find the z score that is closest to the value 0.95 in the z table. This value turns out to be 1.64
We can then plug this value into the percentile formula:
Percentile Value = μ + zб
95th percentile = 73 + (1.64) 6
95th percentile = 73 + 9.84
95th percentile = 82.84
An otter at the 95th percentile height about 82.82 inches.

Q. 4 The New Mexico State Highway Department is charged with maintaining all state roads in good condition. One measure of

3
 condition is the number of cracks percent in each 100 feet of roadway. From the department’s yearly sample, the following
data were obtained:
4 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 12 13
13 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 16
16 16 16 16 17 17 18 18 19 19
Calculate the interfractile ranges between the 20th, 40th, 60th and 80th percentiles.
Answer:

4
5
Q. 5 A ferry carries 25 passengers. The weight of each passenger has a normal distribution with mean 168 pounds and variance
361 pounds squared. Safety regulations state that for this particular ferry, the total weight of passengers on the boat
should not exceed 4,250 pounds more than 5 percent of the time. As a service to the ferry owners, find

(a) The probability that the total weight of passengers on the ferry will exceed 4,250 pounds.
Answer:

6
 (b) The 95th percentile of the distribution of the total weight of passengers on the ferry. Is the ferry complying with
safety regulations?
Answer:

Ferry Does not comply with safety regulation.