Part (a)(i)
2 marksAssumption 1: Each ornament is faulty independently of whether any other ornament is faulty.
Assumption 2: Each ornament has the same, constant probability of being faulty.
| To check your answer: a binomial model needs a fixed number of independent trials, each with the same probability of “success” (here, “faulty”) — the two assumptions above supply exactly independence and constant probability. ✓ |
Part (a)(ii)
1 markLet be the number of faulty ornaments in a day: .
| To check your answer: in general ; here , matching directly. ✓ |
Part (a)(iii)
1 markExplanation: by GC, summing the probabilities from to gives .
Part (a)(iv)
3 marksApproach
“No more than 2 faulty ornaments” is itself a Bernoulli-type event with the probability found in (iii), repeated independently over the 5 days of the week. This calls for a second binomial distribution built on top of the first, not a fresh calculation from the ornament counts.
Let be the number of days, out of 5, on which no more than 2 faulty ornaments are produced. Each day is independent with the same probability (unrounded value, from (iii)), so
We require , converting to cumulative form first:
By GC, , so
| To check your answer: the per-day probability is above , and out of is close to the expected count , so a fairly high probability is reasonable. ✓ |
Part (a)(v)
2 marksApproach
the week’s total fault count is a sum of independent variables. Since they share the same , this sum is itself binomial with , rather than a normal approximation or a fresh distribution.
Let be the total number of faulty ornaments produced in the 5-day week. Since the ornaments made in the week are each independently faulty with probability ,
Explanation: by GC, .
| To check your answer: , so sitting just above is consistent with being the mean of . ✓ |
Part (b)
6 marksApproach
we cannot compare and by evaluating them at particular values of — the question asks for all . The way in is to write both probabilities as functions of , subtract, and factorise the difference so that its sign is visible for every in the interval.
Let , so a pen is faulty with probability , where .
Mr Lu’s method: Let be the number of faulty pens in his sample of 6, so . He accepts the box if or .
Mrs Ming’s method: Let be the number of faulty pens in her first sample of 3, so .
If (probability ), she accepts immediately. If (probability ), she takes a second sample of 3, accepting only if that sample has 0 faulty pens (probability ). If or , she rejects.
| To check your answer: at , and , so Mrs Ming does accept a greater proportion at this value. ✓ |
To compare the two methods for every , we consider the difference .
Factorising : substituting gives , so is a factor.
The quadratic factor has discriminant , giving roots or , so
| To check your answer: expanding , matching. ✓ |
Combining the two factorisations,
so
For : since ; since on this open interval; and since . Hence the product for all .
| To check your answer: at , , matching the direct computation . ✓ |
for all , so Mrs Ming always accepts a strictly greater proportion of boxes than Mr Lu does, regardless of the value of .