Sandi: 1. Unfortunately not. Our values were closest to the true value of zinc (7.14). However, at 90% confidence levels, our values fell between 6.488139 and 6.913829. At 95% confidence level, our value range from 6.447362-6.954614.
2. The interval increases as the confidence level increases. This results in a large range of data that would be in the "acceptable" range. However, this would result in such a large range of data within the acceptable set that the results would be essentially meaningless.
3. If the initial measurement was off then the rest of the measurments would correspondingly be off by that same amount. If the remaining measurements were accurate, the amount of the initial error would be the error. However, if measurement errors were made with the rest of the experiment (error in measuring volume or beaker) the results would be skewed.
1 comment:
Sandi:
1. Unfortunately not. Our values were closest to the true value of zinc (7.14). However, at 90% confidence levels, our values fell between 6.488139 and 6.913829. At 95% confidence level, our value range from 6.447362-6.954614.
2. The interval increases as the confidence level increases. This results in a large range of data that would be in the "acceptable" range. However, this would result in such a large range of data within the acceptable set that the results would be essentially meaningless.
3. If the initial measurement was off then the rest of the measurments would correspondingly be off by that same amount. If the remaining measurements were accurate, the amount of the initial error would be the error. However, if measurement errors were made with the rest of the experiment (error in measuring volume or beaker) the results would be skewed.
Post a Comment