At confidence, what is the margin of error and the interval estimate of the number of -year-old drivers in 1983? Round your intermediate answers to four decimal places. Margin of error .0190 (four decimal places) Interval estimate (to four decimal places)

The data in the question is incomplete, however I believe you are interested in knowing how to calculate margin of error ME and confidence interval CI given figures from a sampled experiment or research. The explanation box will guide you through.

Explanation:

Confidence interval CI is the range within which an outcome is expected to occur. Usually, it is tied to a percentage which suggest how sure you are that a particular outcome will occur.

Margin of error ME depicts the actual boundaries within which your prediction is permissible. Hence ME is denoted as ± thereby lying on both side of the bell curve.

The relationship between CI and ME is:

± ME and ME=  

M=sample mean

D=standard deviation

n=sample size

Z=confidence coefficient

Example:

At 98% confidence level, what is the margin of error and confidence interval estimate that from a sample size of 500 girls, the average weight is 40kg with a standard deviation of 20.

Solution:

From the question, we have the following data:

M=40kg

D=20

n=500

at 98% confidence level,

Z=2.33

because,

Z is the equivalent of p in a standard confidence coefficient table.

where p=1-

but αconfidence level=1-98%=0.02

∵p=1-=1-0.01=0.99

reading up .99 from the Z table we have

Z=2.33

now

ME==

∵Margin of error=2.08

CI=M±ME=40±2.08

Lower bound=40-2.08=37.92

Upper bound=40+2.08=42.08

In summary, it means that the researcher is 98% confident that the average weight of the girls falls withing 37.92kg to 42.08kg

a small object of mass 3.66 g and charge -17.6 µc is suspended motionless above the ground when immersed in a uniform electric field perpendicular to the ground. what are the magnitude and direction of the electric field?

relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them. more precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied. relativists characteristically insist, furthermore, that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent vantage point from which the matter of whether the thing in question is so can be established.

relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time. defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. detractors dismiss it for its alleged incoherence and uncritical intellectual permissiveness. debates about relativism permeate the whole spectrum of philosophical sub-disciplines. from ethics to epistemology, science to religion, political theory to ontology, theories of meaning and even logic, philosophy has felt the need to respond to this heady and seemingly subversive idea. discussions of relativism often also invoke considerations relevant to the very nature and methodology of philosophy and to the division between the so-called “analytic and continental” camps in philosophy. and yet, despite a long history of debate going back to plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has. this entry attempts to provide a broad account of the many ways in which “relativism” has been defined, explained, defended and criticized.

explanation: