Below you will find examples of comments for Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Statistical analysis assignment.
You can use these as a guide if you want, but DO NOT copy them exactly! If your own comments are written in the exact same words, your report will be considered as plagiarised.

Section 2-Comments
d. Describe and comment on the Pie Chart and Bar Graph
total 5 marks:
5 comments, 1 mark per comment

It can be observed from the bar chart that Human Anatomy scores are approaching a normal distribution, with more data gathered towards the centre of the distribution compared to the tails. According to the pie chart, most students (27%) scored between 60-70 on their Human Anatomy exam. However, only 14% of students managed to score higher than 90, while 5% scored lower than 40 on their exam. These results might point towards a fair Human Anatomy exam, which can differentiate between the highly capable, average, and weaker students.

Section 3-Comments

c. Describe and comment on your findings
total 15 marks:
1 mark per each measure mentioned (total 10 comments)

• up to 5 extra marks (1 mark per comment) for any additional, critical comments (examples of these are highlighted in pink)

Min 20
Max 98
range 78
Q1 47.75
Q2 (Median) 69
Q3 85.25
Interquartile Range 37.5
Mode 23
Mean 63.767
Standard Deviation 24.767

Based on the above calculations, we can observe that the minimum score achieved on the Pediatric Surgery exam was 20, whereas the maximum score was 98. We can observe that, although no students scored 0, no student had a perfect score either. The range of scores was wide, demonstrating a difference between the minimum and maximum scores of 78 marks. The interquartile range was 37.5 marks between the lower quartile (Q1=47.75) and the upper quartile (Q3=85.25). Furthermore, the median score was 69, meaning that half of the students scored above 69, while the other half scored below 69. Additionally, by observing the quartiles we can assume that 25% of students scored below 47.75 on the exam, while 25% of students scored above 85.25. The most common score across all students was 23 (mode), a failing mark. However, the average grade was x ̅=63.767. The standard deviation of s= 24. 767 was large, meaning that the scores were quite varied with the average distance of scores from the mean being 24.767 marks. Furthermore, the mean, mode and median are not equal, which points to the fact that the data is not normally distributed. After further investigation, we might assume that the scores on Pediatric Surgery appear to be negatively skewed, since the distance between Q3 and Q2 is smaller than the distance between Q2 and Q1.

Section 4-Comments

d. Describe and comment on your findings
total 10 marks:
2 marks per each comment about a measure (total: 4 comments)
+2 for additional critical comments

Based on the calculation of Pearson Moment Correlation Coefficient (r = 0.95), we can infer that there is a strong positive correlation between the scores of Human Anatomy and Paediatric Surgery, and that the more Human Anatomy scores increase, the more Paediatric Surgery scores should increase. In addition, based on the calculation of the Coefficient of Determination (r 2 =0.90) it can be assumed that 90% of the variation in Paediatric Surgery scores can be explained by the variation in Human Anatomy scores. Looking at the y-intercept (a=-22.68), it could be suggested that if a student scored 0 in Human Anatomy, they would technically score -22.68 in Paediatric Surgery; while the calculation of the gradient (b=1.41) suggests that every time Human Anatomy scores increase by 1 unit, Paediatric Surgery scores would increase by 1.41 units.
Plus any other reasonable comment on the procedure or results.