At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
This is what you need:|dw:1363253506385:dw|
To find out what the number on the dots is, you have to use a table or a graphical calculator like the TI-84. These have a built-in function that accepts a probability that is cumulative from the left:|dw:1363253885929:dw|
In your case, because of the given middle 50%, the parts left and right of it, are 25%, so the cumulative probability (from the left) is 75%. Suppose L is the egg-length, then you would write it in mathematical notation as follows: \(P(L<0.75|~\mu =32,~\sigma=1.2)=x\). On the TI-84, you need the invNorm-function. Type in: \(invNorm(0.75, 32,1.2)\). Result: 32.81. Now, because of the symmetry of the normal distribution, you can answer the question.
32 mm plus or minus ____________ mm. Because we've found the "plus" side of the 50% area to be 32.81 mm, 0.81mm has been added. Your answer will be 0.81. But: it is not quite clear what number of decimals are to be given, so it could also be 0.8 or 0.809. The calculator doesn't care: it gave me 32.8093877 as result from the invNorm function...
I worked by hand using the tables and got 32 +/- .804. I did not interpolate. The standard deviation is tight about the mean. Somehow the answer did not feel right but I think it is okay.
I had 32.238 < 32 < 32.838 as the 50% of egg lengths range. But, that is not the question.
I think in general the answer of the calculator is more accurate than that of a table, but there is no need to give many decimals if the standard deviation has only 1...
@Nurali --> My @signal does not work. Send a web mail or note message if you need my help. Unless I happen to see that you called me, I don't know.
Oh, yes, I agree @ZeHanz. I had to go with the tools I had here.
@jishan: what do you mean?