Comment about today's potato discussion: Do we really need to take a bigger sample if we have stadium full of (randomly mixed up) potatoes compared to when we have "only" a truck full of potatoes? See page 273 for ideas...
No. The book says that " the fraction of the population that you've sampled doesn't matter. It's the sample size itself that's important." The size of the sample doesn't have to be proportional to the size of the population. However, it has to be large enough to make sure that it is representative of the population. So, providing that the potatoes are randomly mixed, we wouldn't need a sample any larger for the stadium full of potatoes.
We don't need to worry about the size of the population or the fraction of the pop. that we've sampled. The sample size itself is what matters. It has to be representative of the population, but the sample size doesn't have to increase proportionatly to the increase of the population. As long as all the potatoes in the population are randomly scattered, we don't necessarily need a bigger sample.
No because if it is all evenly mixed then you would get a good representation of the patatos. Yuo don't want to take more because that could take more time and money.
No, we don't need a humongous sample size if the samples will yield the same results. Increasing the sample size will just make the testing process long and arduous, when the tests could have been done using a smaller size that would still have given enough data to represent the entire population.
Nope, because as long as the sample is mixed evenly, then it would be equally even to having a truck full of potatoes. That is why there would be no need to sample, for example, 50 more boxes of potatoes in a stadium full.
No if you conclude that that is the right sample size to tell if the potatoes are good, assuming there randomly mixed, then it doesnt matter how many potatoes there are
i have to get on this thing earlier. My answer is so generic. NO. The size of population shouldnt affect the sample size. The randomitity should be the same.
No, we do not need a bigger because mizzJuliuh said so. Also, population size will not change sample size. Even when population increases, the sample DOES NOT have to be proportional, it must simply be representative of the population, because mizzJu says.
the sample size is what matter. it has to be big enough to give a good representation of the population but shouldnt exsesivly big. also we wouldnt need to have a bigger sample size if the potatoes were in a stadium because if they were randomly mixed the sample would still provide the same info as it did with the truck full or potatoes
No. Sample size compared to population size does not have to be proportional. Ratios do not matter only the the sample size itself is important. A sample size must only be large enough to be representative of a population.
15 comments:
NO. The only thing that matters is the sample size, not the fraction of the population.
No. The book says that " the fraction of the population that you've sampled doesn't matter. It's the sample size itself that's important." The size of the sample doesn't have to be proportional to the size of the population. However, it has to be large enough to make sure that it is representative of the population. So, providing that the potatoes are randomly mixed, we wouldn't need a sample any larger for the stadium full of potatoes.
No, we don't need a bigger sample. The sample just has to represent the population
We don't need to worry about the size of the population or the fraction of the pop. that we've sampled. The sample size itself is what matters. It has to be representative of the population, but the sample size doesn't have to increase proportionatly to the increase of the population. As long as all the potatoes in the population are randomly scattered, we don't necessarily need a bigger sample.
No because if it is all evenly mixed then you would get a good representation of the patatos. Yuo don't want to take more because that could take more time and money.
No. As long as they are randomly mixed, we shouldn't have to increase the sample size, even if the population is that much bigger.
No, we don't need a humongous sample size if the samples will yield the same results. Increasing the sample size will just make the testing process long and arduous, when the tests could have been done using a smaller size that would still have given enough data to represent the entire population.
the sample just has to be big enough to accuratley represent the whole. its does not change if theres more of the substance.
Nope, because as long as the sample is mixed evenly, then it would be equally even to having a truck full of potatoes. That is why there would be no need to sample, for example, 50 more boxes of potatoes in a stadium full.
No if you conclude that that is the right sample size to tell if the potatoes are good, assuming there randomly mixed, then it doesnt matter how many potatoes there are
i have to get on this thing earlier. My answer is so generic.
NO. The size of population shouldnt affect the sample size. The randomitity should be the same.
No, we do not need a bigger because mizzJuliuh said so. Also, population size will not change sample size. Even when population increases, the sample DOES NOT have to be proportional, it must simply be representative of the population, because mizzJu says.
the sample size is what matter. it has to be big enough to give a good representation of the population but shouldnt exsesivly big. also we wouldnt need to have a bigger sample size if the potatoes were in a stadium because if they were randomly mixed the sample would still provide the same info as it did with the truck full or potatoes
No. Sample size compared to population size does not have to be proportional. Ratios do not matter only the the sample size itself is important. A sample size must only be large enough to be representative of a population.
Post a Comment