Assume a poll announces that Americans' confidence in our military has decreased from 65% to 60% since January. The poll fails to mention a sample size or margin of error. Is this necessarily a decline? Explain.
203011
while i would agree with the other 2 answeres to a point.  If the poll is being conducted by the same organization, say Wall Street Journal, then you can assume that they used the same procedures and sampling selection as the previous poll.  While it may be better to show all the assumptions, the core results would show a shift in the average.  Now take a USAToday poll and the Christian Science Monitor, and the comparison may be totally invalid.
383394
You know, I completely agree. When America voted in 2004, they voted for change. So far, all that has happened is more troops have been sent overseas to fight battles that, depending on peronal views, potentially should not have started. Nothing is being done about the other issues [so it seems]. What happened to the morals Americans voted for? What happened to the morals that were presented in the election in order to regain the presidency. Simply what is going on?
641100
I would suggest its boils down to apathy,detachment, failed expectation, or a combination of two or more of the three.\n\nApathy- Many people just don't care enough or find the issues the president may be involved in during his/her administration to be important enough for them to cast a vote,they would rather let the chips fall where they may.\n\nDetachment-Many people may feel so detached from politics in general or from the executive branch of government that they may feel separated or apart from any actual decision making processes that directly or indirectly affect them.\n\nFailed expectations-Many people have either encountered or have been influenced by others who allegedly encountered experiences where the Head of government at any level including national have failed to come through on their promises,or moved in some direction antithetical to the ones they indicated they would on given issues.Its a common interpretation that all politicians are liars and of course the president is at the top of the list.Many people do not subscribe to the notion that any single vote can make the difference.\n\nIt is my supposition that people in general have no idea what most of the actual issues are, or the positions the candidates have taken on them.It is my opinion that modern Americans have become jaded and self involved and detached from the concept of nationalism,except when it adversely effects their position or ideology.It is also my opinion that most people don't think their vote makes a difference, and there knowledge of our constitutionally created system of free democratic due process is limited at best.\n\nI agree with you,I do vote,I cherish the right to do so,and my expectations are high,I still believe that one vote can make the difference especially when the number of votes are declining.I guess you wanted non voters to answer this question but I just couldn't help myself, I hope it generates some reaction or response from non voters,at least we know they gave the subject on moment of thought,and that's probably more than they have in a long time.
479987
The bigger the sample size, the more accurate the estimate.\n\nSay I was estimating the percentage of red m&m's in a pack.\n\nIf I sampled 10 m&m's, I might I might find that the sample contains 1 red one. This could lead me to think that a pack contained 10% red m&m's.\n\nHowever, if I sampled 100 m&m's, I might find that the sample contains 15 red m&m's, leading me to think that a pack contains 15% red m&m's. This answer is impossible using the sample size of 10, as you can't get 1.5 m&m's of a particular colour.\n\nIf I sampled 1000 m&m's I might find that I have 143 red ones, leading me to think that the pack contains 14.3% red m&m's.\n\nSo, as you can see, the bigger the sample size, the closer the estimation comes to the actual answer.
543295
The problem with that statement is that you are making a statement about the sample, not the population.  You know for a fact that of the 1026 people in you sample, 57% said no.  There is no doubt about that.  There is no need to make a confidence statement about a sample.  Confidence intervals are guesses as to what the value of the population parameter is.  So you need to be making a statement about the population percent, not the sample percent.\n\nNow there are many ways to interpret confidence.  Think about taking many samples of size 1026 from the population.  If you make a confidence interval with all of these, 95% of these confidence intervals will contain the true population proportion; 5% won't.\n\nAlso, the confidence interval should be 54% to 60%, and this is for the percentage who said no.
180924
in statistics what you do is take a small sample, do the tests on the small sample and then generalize the results to the whole population.\n\nHere you took a small sample, found the mean to be 0.68\n\nBut the mean in the whole population will not be always equal to 0.68 . It can be 0.68, but it can lie anywhere around it to. \n\nHence, we have our confidence intervals around 0.68\n\nSo, when we say that the confidence intervals are (.63692, .72308), it means that we are 95% sure that the whole population mean will lie between 0.63692 seconds and .72308 seconds. \n\nSince 0.75 is not in that range, the chance of the population mean being 0.75 is less than 5% or negligible. \n\nI hope that helps.
464564
Some people have wanted Bush to fail so badly that they've called every success a failure.  In any group there are a certain number of cowards.  Some Americans do not appreciate or remember that their own freedoms were bought with the blood of volunteers.
178793
The U.S government started a down-sizing move several years back. As a result, there are about 30% less actvie duty personnel now, and that means that there are that many less people to utilize the installations. With less people, there is less need for bases everywhere, including the U.S. There have been lots of base-closings all over the world, but there are still enough to handle those who remain on active duty, either married or single.
176129
As it happens, I just got back from a test on statistics. We covered that very question. \n\nHere goes:\nthe sample size is dependent on how confident you want to be about your results. In the following formula, then Z is the confidence level. Use 1.65 for 90% confidence level, 1.96 for 95%, 2,33 for 98% and 2.58 for 99%. \nYou also need to know the standard deviation, which should be given. and the error allowable, for instance 3%, or 5% or such. That number goes into the formula as E. \n\nso number n equals = (Z * standard deviation/E)^2
515858
Generally speaking, yes it has had an impact on the image of the US.  I'm in the USA.  But many people outside the US are quite upset with us over Iraq.   Outside of the Islamic world, not many are too upset with us over Afghanistan-- that was considered justified given the taliban, OBL and 9/11.\n\nAfter 9/11 the US supposedly had much support over being attacked.  Even from some countries one wouldn't expect.\n\nInvading Iraq based on faulty info has been seen as a mistake especially in light of ignoring the UN position on this.  We had broad support in the first Gulf war but not in the second.\n\nI do speak with friends and colleagues from other countries-- generally they're ok US people, but quite upset about our policies around the world.  I've also seen opinions from some that indicate we're too leanient in some cases-- that is, we need to just demolish people who mess with us.\n\nIn one converstation, I was discussing freedom of speech etc. with a foreign student (from Europe).  When I mentioned protests, it surprised him that we protest against our own government.  In his country, most of the protests are against the US and less so against their own goverment.\n\nI think we (the US) are often seen as trying to impose our wishes on everybody else regardless of what they want or think.\n\nOh, I'll echo the comment below me-- many outside the US think "americans" are generally ignorant.  Not agreeing with that but that's the perception.
203120
your confidence interval of .4873 to .5526 indicates the range of the true mean with 95% confidence.  Since values above and below .50 are in this range, the poll is a tossup.
439035
Oddly enough this is NOT an easy thing to find.  I found it at only a few sites.  Eash contradicting the others.  Once I found an unbiased source, it breaks down like this..... \n\nRep-31%\nDem-29%\nIndependent  40%\n\nAs Voted on Nov 7th\n\nDemocrat 53%\nRepublican 44%\nInd 3%
101887
The military for the most part are indoctrinated and trained to respond that way, however a sample of 150 is not adequate . You need closer to 1000 samples for any kind of confidence in the data and by that I mean a 95% level of accuracy.\n\nI knew guys that were happy to be in Nam, ( at first ).\nAlot of Americans already believe civil war has already started.\n\nAs for all the good things happening in Iraq, they seemed to be better off before our invasion and occupation.  We did a lot of good things in South Vietnam too.  It would be too demoralizing for the US forces to even entertain the idea that we are there to secure access to Middle Eastern oil, \nbut this is what this operation is really about.\n\nFreedom, democracy, the war on terra, or...WMDs, are all handy buzzwords that can provide justification to help someone get with the program.  When I was in the military I did not\nsee a lot of critical or analytical thinking any more than I do now.\nWe had the domino theory, back then.
501413
Hypothetical questions get hypo answer. Hope the following would 'serve' you and you may keep yourself engaged (LOL):\n\nPoll date: February 18, 2005\n\nHave you served in the US military in wartime?\n\n Yes, World War I     0.7 % (23) \n Yes, World War II     1.8 % (63) \n Yes, Korean War     4.2 % (148) \n Yes, Vietnam War     33.2 % (1170) \n Yes, Desert Storm     6.0 % (211) \n Yes, Iraq/Afganistan     2.4 % (85) \n No     51.7 % (1819) \n Total votes: 3519 \n \nNote: You may vote only once. This ARRLWeb poll is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those ARRLWeb users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of the amateur community as a whole, or of the ARRL.
529541
The US is on the decline.  The Romans began to decline when they went to  a mercenary army and so are  we now.  It is a symptom of no longer being willing to make the burdens shared by all, but instead hiring them done.  As we continue to  outsource jobs and pile up trade debt to countries like China, we become more and more dependent and beholding to others.  We continue to have the strongest military, but it won't  be long until China's economy will challenge our own.  And as we erode our moral leadership on the world's stage, we will also lose respect. Further, the quality of education in  this country has fallen so far that our math and science scores are now 38th in the world, and we are in a competitive hi-tech  world economy, we will shortly lose our competitive edge and head in the  direction of  our  scores.  So probably China will become the next superpower on the way up,and unless we do something about our debt and world respectability, we will soon pass them on the way down.
377617
Yes. The ARIS study of 2001 shows that the percentage of Christians in the U.S. has dropped approximately .9% every year since 1991. At that rate, the current percentage of U.S. should be about 73% of the population.
63553
It depends on how long it tkaes to get the job done.One of the major beliefs of the military is to never give up and never surrender.Our soldiers are doing a wonderful job!I have spoken with quite a few and all of them say not to listen to the media.Our soldiers are doing alot more good things than the media will show and or tell.The ones that i have spoken too feel that they are doing the right thing and are working very hard to do what is nessecary.HOOAH to the military!