Question 2 (12 marks)
A bank is investigating the effectiveness of its small business loan application process and whether it should consider changing its practice. The current process consists of a loans officer making the decision to either “Approve” or “Not Approve” the loan application, based upon their subjective interpretation of certain criteria. As part of its investigation and for a trial period, the bank had a small set of summary information from each application entered into an automated “intelligent system”. The intelligent system then provided a risk rating for the application of either “Tolerable” (indicating the application was worthy of approval) or “Not Tolerable” (indicating the application was not worthy of approval). The applications were then assessed by loans officers in the usual manner, without knowledge of the prior risk rating.
It transpired that the intelligent system deemed 70% of applications to have “Tolerable” risk, with 60% of these subsequently being approved by the loans officers. 10% of applications that had been deemed “Not Tolerable” were also approved by loans officers.
Solution
Solution
Tree diagram representing the situation
Solution
Thus, 45% of loan applications were actually approved by loans officers.
Proportion that the intelligent system would have approved is 70%.
The 45% proportion of loan applications that were actually approved by loans officers is less than the Proportion that the intelligent system would have approved.
Solution
If a particular loan was approved by a loans officer, the probability that the intelligent system would not have approved it is 0.1 (proportion of loans approved by loan officers having rejected by the intelligent system).
Solution
Decision by the intelligent system is independent on the loan officers’ decision. This is because the probability of the decision made by the intelligent system does not in any way affect the probability of the decision being made by the loan officers.
Intrinsically, the probability of the two independent events are mutually exclusive, in that, the occurrence of one event does not affect the occurrence of the other.
Question 3 (8 marks)
A manufacturer producing carpets knows that its process producing a particular high end but complex carpet weave results in an average of 4.5 minor imperfections for each 10 linear metres of carpet.
Solution
Y follows a Poisson distribution. For this particular distribution, we have;
In this case;
Solution
After the calculations, we found that the probability that a particular 10 metre section of this carpet chosen at random will have at most 6 minor imperfections is 0.831051.
Solution
The excel formula used is;
=(EXP(-0.9)* (0.9)^0)/FACT(0)
Question 4 (16 marks)
Typically a small proportion of passengers booked on airline flights do not turn up to fly. Such passengers are called “no shows”. (For this reason some airlines actually overbook flights on frequent busy services in a strategy to limit the number of empty seats.)
Solution
X follows a binomial distribution:
Solution
This shows that the expected number of no shows on a fully booked flight on a particular A34 service is 2.08. That is to say, approximately 3 (considering persons) people will not show up on a fully booked flight on a particular A34 service.
Solution
This value is close to zero
Excel formula;
=(FACT(52)/(FACT(52-52)*FACT(52)))*0.04^52*0.096^(52-52)
Solution
Excel formulas are;
=(FACT(52)/(FACT(52-0)*FACT(0)))*0.04^0*0.096^(52-0)
=(FACT(52)/(FACT(52-1)*FACT(1)))*0.04^1*0.096^(52-1)
=(FACT(52)/(FACT(52-2)*FACT(2)))*0.04^2*0.096^(52-2)
=(FACT(52)/(FACT(52-3)*FACT(3)))*0.04^3*0.096^(52-3)
Solution
Excel function;
=(FACT(10)/(FACT((10-1))*FACT(1)))*(0.05)^1*(0.95)^(10-1)
Solution
The most likely assumption to be contravened is the assumption that each trial is mutually exclusive, or independent of each other. This is because there are planes, and a no show in one plane may affect a no show in another depending on the factors such as the manner in which customers view the services offered. One disappointed client might fail to board other planes and also influence some other clients not to take the flights.
Question 5 (22 marks)
A company produces electric car batteries. The range of these batteries under standard driving conditions is understood to be normally distributed with a mean of 520 km and a standard deviation of 50 km.
Solution
X follows a normal distribution with mean, µ= 520 and standard deviation, = 50.
Solution
We seek to find P(x<480)
We obtain the z score as follows;
Thus, the probability that a randomly selected battery will last less than 480 km is 0.2119.
Solution
We also used excel formula. The formula used is given below;
=NORM.S.DIST(STANDARDIZE(480, 520, 50), TRUE)
=0.2119
Solution
We seek to find P(x>600)
We obtain the z score as follows;
Thus, the probability that a randomly selected battery will last for more than 600 km is 0.0548.
Solution
=1-NORM.S.DIST(STANDARDIZE(600, 520, 50), TRUE)
=0.0548
Solution
The expected value is approximately 618 km. The formula used is;
=NORMINV((1-0.025), 520, 50)
The answer shows that given a probability of 0.025 (2.5%), a randomly selected battery will last for more than 618 km under standard driving conditions.
Solution
The distribution of the mean distance travelled is 520 km. The mean distance is similar to the population mean.
Solution
We seek to find P(510<x<530)
We obtain the z score as follows;
From the computations, we can see that the probability that the average distance travelled between 510 km and 530 km is 0.6826.
Read More