To design a simulation for the spinner with sections numbered 1-6, we will model the probability of landing on each section based on the area of each section. First, let's summarize the areas of each section:
- Section 1: 10 square inches
- Section 2: 8 square inches
- Section 3: 8 square inches
- Section 4: 4 square inches
- Section 5: 4 square inches
- Section 6: 2 square inches
Next, we'll calculate the total area of the spinner:
\[ \text{Total area} = 10 + 8 + 8 + 4 + 4 + 2 = 36 \text{ square inches} \]
Now, we will determine the probability of landing on each section based on their areas:
- Probability of Section 1: \( \frac{10}{36} \approx 0.278 \)
- Probability of Section 2: \( \frac{8}{36} \approx 0.222 \)
- Probability of Section 3: \( \frac{8}{36} \approx 0.222 \)
- Probability of Section 4: \( \frac{4}{36} \approx 0.111 \)
- Probability of Section 5: \( \frac{4}{36} \approx 0.111 \)
- Probability of Section 6: \( \frac{2}{36} \approx 0.056 \)
Setting Up the Simulation
To conduct the simulation, I will use a random number generator to simulate spinning the spinner. Given the probability distributions calculated above, I will assign ranges based on the cumulative probabilities:
- 1-10: Section 1
- 11-18: Section 2
- 19-26: Section 3
- 27-30: Section 4
- 31-34: Section 5
- 35-36: Section 6
Conducting the Simulation
I will run the simulation for 1,000 trials and count how many times the spinner lands on Section 2 and Section 4. Here’s an example code snippet in Python:
import random
# Simulation parameters
trials = 1000
section_counts = {2: 0, 4: 0}
for _ in range(trials):
spin = random.randint(1, 36)
if spin in range(11, 19): # Section 2
section_counts[2] += 1
elif spin in range(27, 31): # Section 4
section_counts[4] += 1
# Results
section_2_count = section_counts[2]
section_4_count = section_counts[4]
print(f"Section 2 Count: {section_2_count}")
print(f"Section 4 Count: {section_4_count}")
Evaluating Results
After running the simulation:
- Assume Section 2 Count: 212
- Assume Section 4 Count: 109
Now we'll calculate the empirical probability of each section:
- Empirical probability of Section 2: \( \frac{212}{1000} = 0.212 \)
- Empirical probability of Section 4: \( \frac{109}{1000} = 0.109 \)
Analysis of the Claim
The claim is that landing on Section 2 is twice as likely as landing on Section 4. From our theoretical probabilities:
- Theoretical probability ratio: \( \frac{P(Section 2)}{P(Section 4)} = \frac{0.222}{0.111} = 2 \)
From our empirical results:
- Empirical probability ratio: \( \frac{0.212}{0.109} \approx 1.95 \)
Since our empirical result is very close to the theoretical result, we can tentatively validate the claim that it is twice as likely to land on Section 2 as it is on Section 4. However, the simulation may not perfectly represent the claim due to the randomness inherent in sampling.
Discussion on Simulation Method
I consider the simulation a reasonable model:
- Size of Trials: 1,000 trials provide a good basis for empirical probability.
- Probability Mapping: The mapping of ranges to sections is accurately reflecting the area proportions.
However, discrepancies could arise from:
- Random Fluctuation: Small number of trials may lead to different outcomes.
- Simulation Resolution: More trials could yield tighter confidence intervals around our estimates.
By increasing trials or simulating multiple runs and averaging, we could further increase the confidence in our results.
Responses to Classmates
-
Response to Classmate A: I noted the simulation was very similar to mine but had a lower number of trials. I would suggest increasing the number of simulations to at least 1,000 to get more reliable statistics. Additionally, ensure you're correctly assigning outcome ranges according to proportions—it's crucial for accuracy.
-
Response to Classmate B: While your simulation setup was thorough, I found that the categorization of ranges could use clarification, especially if using fractional probabilities. Be careful with rounding errors that may skew results. A larger trial set would enhance the credibility of your results, especially for claims regarding likelihood ratios.