Could someone please just check my answers for this? I want to make sure I did these right.

Question

1. A student reported the mass of ten glass beads as 2.507 +/- 0.015 g. What should the student report as the mass of one bead? Explain your answer.

A: The student should report the mass of one bead as anything between 2.492 and 2.522. This is true because anything between those numbers would fall in between the range of what the student reported as the mass of the glass beads.

2. A student reported the density of glass beads as 2.05 +/- 0.34 gmL^-1. What should the student report as the density of one glass bead? Explain your answer.

A: The student should report the density of one glass bead as anything between 1.71 and 2.39. This is true because anything between those numbers would fall in between the range of what the student reported as the dnsity of the glass beads.

3. A student measured the mass of ten glass beads five times instead of using five sets of ten randomly selected glass beads. Would you expect that the confidence interval for the mean of the mass measurements would be zero?

I wouldn't expect the confidence interval for the mean of the mass measurements to be zero but rather much higher. The same set of beads would yield the same, or very close to the same, confidence interval and probability that the mean of the mass measurements would be close.

4. A student noticed that the average diameter of the glass beads used for the mass measurements was significantly smaller than those used for the volume measurements. How would experimental determination of the density of glass be affected? Is this a systematic or random error?

Experimental determination of the density of the glass would be affected because the experimental value would be greater than the accepted value. There would be big percent difference. This is a systematic error because an error was made in measurement. It influenced the accuracy of the result.

5. Which of the following terms has the greater effect on random error, p(d): the precision of the mass measurements, indicated by [p(m)/(mean)m]^2; or the precision of the volume measurements, indicated by [p(V)/(mean)V]^2? How might you revise the experimental procedure to reduce this effect?

The precision of the volume measurements has the greater effect on random error. This is because the mass of the beads would all be close to the same, but the volume is harder to calculate due to irreproducibility of an instrument and imprecision among multiple readings. I might revise the experimental procedure to reduce this effect by doing multiple measures of the same construct and making sure data is collected correctly.

1. A student reported the mass of ten glass beads as 2.507 +/- 0.015 g. What should the student report as the mass of one bead? Explain your answer.

A: The student should report the mass of one bead as anything between 2.492 and 2.522. This is true because anything between those numbers would fall in between the range of what the student reported as the mass of the glass beads.
Nope. You have to divide the mass of ten beads by ten to get the mass of one
2. A student reported the density of glass beads as 2.05 +/- 0.34 gmL^-1. What should the student report as the density of one glass bead? Explain your answer.

A: The student should report the density of one glass bead as anything between 1.71 and 2.39. This is true because anything between those numbers would fall in between the range of what the student reported as the dnsity of the glass beads.
Nope. You are missing the point. Density does not change with the number of beads. The density reported should be the same as given
3. A student measured the mass of ten glass beads five times instead of using five sets of ten randomly selected glass beads. Would you expect that the confidence interval for the mean of the mass measurements would be zero?

I wouldn't expect the confidence interval for the mean of the mass measurements to be zero but rather much higher. The same set of beads would yield the same, or very close to the same, confidence interval and probability that the mean of the mass measurements would be close.
Nope. If you take the same reading five times, the confidence interval is zero. Meaningless measurements when it comes to the deviation of the individual beads
4. A student noticed that the average diameter of the glass beads used for the mass measurements was significantly smaller than those used for the volume measurements. How would experimental determination of the density of glass be affected? Is this a systematic or random error?

Experimental determination of the density of the glass would be affected because the experimental value would be greater than the accepted value. There would be big percent difference. This is a systematic error because an error was made in measurement. It influenced the accuracy of the result.
Nope. If the measured mass is smaller, and the measured volume is larger, the calculated density will be smaller. What you wrote is gibberish
5. Which of the following terms has the greater effect on random error, p(d): the precision of the mass measurements, indicated by [p(m)/(mean)m]^2; or the precision of the volume measurements, indicated by [p(V)/(mean)V]^2? How might you revise the experimental procedure to reduce this effect?

The precision of the volume measurements has the greater effect on random error. This is because the mass of the beads would all be close to the same, but the volume is harder to calculate due to irreproducibility of an instrument and imprecision among multiple readings. I might revise the experimental procedure to reduce this effect by doing multiple measures of the same construct and making sure data is collected correctly.

Nope. I assume you did not measure volume, but measured diameter. That is the measurement which had precision. Now to get volume, you probably cubed diameter, and that greatly magnifies error