If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

### Course: Digital SAT Math>Unit 3

Lesson 10: Evaluating statistical claims: foundations

# Data collection and conclusions — Harder example

Watch Sal work through a harder Data collections and conclusions problem.

## Want to join the conversation?

• It doesn't seem that hard, just really, really long.
• Anyone have a faster method? Spending the time to write out and plot those points seems too long to be viable during the SAT.
• Here's how I would've solved the problem:

I is correct, because there are only two players not born between January 1st and June 30th (the last two players).

II. is incorrect because I is correct.

III. is incorrect because the table doesn't say anything about the skill of the players.

IV. is correct. You can know that by counting the players who are born in 1987.

Thus, I would've solved this in about a minute. Maybe this question isn't that hard, after all. :)
• Choice number1 didn't convince me, what's the relationship between players being part of the team and being born between January 1 and June 30?
• There is an association, and it is that more people are born in the first half of the years so that's the association. And that is why number 1 is also correct.
(1 vote)
• I think I it should add approximately in front of "42%",then the answer will be B.
• It sounds like it should be, but I actually don't think it would be. Because there is a chance that out of the 500 people randomly picked, all of them were political extremists or something and would support a policy no one else would, you can't say that anything must be true. Approximately 42% would mean that choice B) is very likely to be true, but not that it is true in all cases. This is the same in basically every SAT question like this, except if they give you a confidence interval in the question.
• It's 2007 in the question, but he says 2017.
• Is there a faster method of solving for this type of problem?
• Does it mean there is an association between two events if the number seems like there is one?
• if you notice, 10 out of 12 were born in the first half of a year. and 10/12 is about 85% which is pretty high for data based on just 12 people
(1 vote)
• I was yelling at my screen halfway through the video that it was C lol took forever
• where can i find videos that will help me understand this concept
can someone explain why I and II are not correct?
we don't have an exact population number. It just says a large city, so we assume 500 people is a good about of participants to represent that city.
And we know that 42% is not definitive but it is an approximation.
(1 vote)
• I can see your point about the 500 people being representative.

The issue is what you referenced at the end. You are assuming an approximation; however, choices I and II don't mention "approximate" or "around".

For example, if they added a margin of error or used those words, it could have worked because it was a random sample.

For II, again with the lack of the word approximate, in that group there could have been 40.5% who supported it.

Dr. Ihrig