Question

A pollster would like to survey 500 students to determine the percentage that would vote for Ben Carson. If the pollster surveyed 500 students who worked directly with Carson will the results be meaningful to depict the thinking of the entire US population of students? Answer yes or no with explanation.

Why was Marilyn Vos Savant's calculation of having breast cancer given a positive mammogram test flawed?

A. Hubble telescope sees a dime sized view of the universe which represents an accurate sample

B. Jhon Hickley is insane

C. Fibonacciseries appears eveerywhere in nature

D.Women who get mammograms have a higher probability of breast cancer than the random American and Marilyn used the random American probabillity in her calculation.

Answer 1

A) No, as these students have worked directly under Carson and hence their decision would based on their past working experience which would alter their voting as compared to other students of US. The pollster result may be more inclined to his win if they've liked working under him or he may lose if those student didn't like to work under him. Their decision would be biased when we compare it with other students of US. Hence the results won't be meaningful in depicting the thinking of the entire US student population.

2.D) As rest 3 options are out of context in this case and option D) provides the correct explanation for the given problem i.e., Women who get mammograms have a higher probability of breast cancer than the random American and Marilyn used the random American probability in her calculation.

Note: I hope this would help you, if you still have any doubt or need clarification in any part then let me know via comments.