Question 1
Suppose that on the front of a packet of jelly it says that the packet makes 500mL of jelly,
enough for 4 servings. There is also nutritional information on the back of the packet which tells
us about the composition of the correctly made jelly mix:
Quantity per packet
(makes 500mL)
Energy 1452 KJ
Protein 5.6 g
Fat 0.0 g
Carbohydrate 77.6 g
Sugars (glucose) 77.6 g
Sodium 552 mg
(a) What is the volume, in litres (L), of a correctly prepared packet of jelly?
0.5
(b) What is the concentration (g/L) of glucose in a correctly prepared packet of jelly?
155.2
(c) How many grams of sodium are there in a single serve of correctly prepared jelly?
0.552
(d) What is the concentration (g/L) of protein in a single serve of correctly prepared packet of
jelly?
11.2
500mL of jelly,
the packet which tells
ket of jelly?
pared jelly?
y prepared packet of
intrinsic annual rate of
annual finite rate of increase number of horses mean pasture biomass
increase
Site-type 1 Site-type 2 Site-type 1 Site-type 2 Site-type 1 Site-type 2 Site-type 1
1.1968406106 1.1974276527 0.2 0.2 89 56 5634
1.1966652416 1.1981511691 0.2 0.2 78 34 4678
1.1963403477 1.1958828187 0.2 0.2 100 78 5465
1.1963494668 1.1968201234 0.2 0.2 89 67 4876
1.197108067 1.1974199493 0.2 0.2 76 56 5256
1.197260274 1.1931252827 0.2 0.2 79 76 5767
1.1965279008 1.196641791 0.2 0.2 98 54 5645
1.1969707284 1.1963987996 0.2 0.2 89 54 5876
1.1967665078 1.1955983494 0.2 0.2 95 64 5876
1.1973058934 1.1955008489 0.2 0.2 72 53 5345
1.1967323944 1.1968896926 0.2 0.2 87 43 5325
1.1972684752 1.1974986406 0.2 0.2 73 46 5345
1.1974982382 1.1980539584 0.2 0.2 71 44 5676
1.1972487581 1.1974160207 0.2 0.2 72 60 5234
Average 1.1969202074 1.1966303641 0.2 0.2 83.4285714 56.071428571 5428.4285714
Minimum 1.1963403477 1.1931252827 0.2 0.2 71 34 4678
Maximum 1.1974982382 1.1981511691 0.2 0.2 100 78 5876
Standard Dev 0.0003597346 0.0012624249 0 0 9.83952878 11.949084159 340.95825347
This chart isn't available in you
Editing this shape or saving this
permanently break the chart.
mean pasture biomass
Site-type 2 d. Annual Finite rate of increase
4354 Averages: both the mean and the median is slightly lower for site-type 2 than site-type
3678 Variation: site-type 1 has a much smaller spread than site-type 2. This suggests that th
3789 Skewness: Site-type 1 is slightly negatively skewed, however Site-type 2 is much more
4214 Its also important to note that site-type 2 has an outlier which may affect the overall s
4341 Horse Numbers:
2211 Avergaes: Site-type 1 has a significantly higher mean and median than site-type 2 whic
3216 Variation: Both site-types have relatively the same size in interquartile range however
2999 Skewness: Site-type 1 appears to be slightly positively skewed, while site-type 2 has a
2908 Neither data sets have outliers that would greatly affect it’s portrayed distribution.
2356 Mean Pasture of biomass
2765 Averages: Both the mean and the median a significantly higher for site-type 1 than for
3678 Variation: Site-type 1 has a significantly smaller spread, its interquartile range being al
4522 Skewness: Site-type 1 is slightly negatively skewed, while site-type 2 is slightly positive
4644 There are no observable outliers in either site that must be considered.
3548.2142857
2211 Overall, considering all three variables, site-type 1 has a smaller overall spread both its
4644
784.06269598
hart isn't available in your version of Excel. This chart isn't available in your version of Excel.
g this shape or saving this workbook into a different file format will Editing this shape or saving this workbook into a different fil
nently break the chart. permanently break the chart.
site-type 2 than site-type 1. However, the difference is slight smaller for the median.
pe 2. This suggests that the overall rate of increase is greater for site-type 1.
Site-type 2 is much more positively skewed than the negative skew of site-type 1.
h may affect the overall spread of the site.
dian than site-type 2 which tells us there are a greater number of horses at site-type 1.
erquartile range however overall site-type 1 is much less spread when you compare the ranges between the two sites.
d, while site-type 2 has a relatively evenly distribution.
portrayed distribution.
er for site-type 1 than for site-type 2.
terquartile range being almost a quarter of site-type 2.
-type 2 is slightly positively skewed.
ler overall spread both its range and interquartile range. In contrast, site-type 2 has a slightly negative skew and a much larger spread.
rsion of Excel.
rkbook into a different file format will
and a much larger spread.
