Drill 1: $E(X) = 0(0.5) + 1(0.5) = 0.5$. $E(X^2) = 0(0.5) + 1(0.5) = 0.5$. $\operatorname{Var}(X) = 0.5 - 0.25 = 0.25$, so $\sigma = 0.5$. Note $E(X^2) = E(X)$ here only because $0^2 = 0$ and $1^2 = 1$; that coincidence does not generalise.
Drill 2: $\mu = 10(0.7) + 20(0.3) = 7 + 6 = 13$. $E(X^2) = 100(0.7) + 400(0.3) = 70 + 120 = 190$. $\operatorname{Var}(X) = 190 - 169 = 21$, so $\sigma = \sqrt{21} \approx 4.583$.
Drill 3: $E(X) = \tfrac{1+2+\dots+8}{8} = \tfrac{36}{8} = 4.5$. The shortcut is valid because every value carries the identical weight $\tfrac{1}{8}$, so the weighted average $\sum x \cdot \tfrac{1}{8}$ factorises to $\tfrac{1}{8}\sum x$, which is the ordinary average.
Drill 4: $E(X) = 7(1) = 7$ and $\operatorname{Var}(X) = (7-7)^2(1) = 0$. In words: the variable is not random at all. There is no spread because there is nothing to spread — every trial gives 7. A variance of zero always means the variable is a constant.
Drill 5: The variance is an average of squared quantities, $\sum (x - \mu)^2 p(x)$, in which every squared deviation is non-negative and every probability is non-negative. A sum of non-negative terms cannot be negative, so a negative variance is impossible and signals an arithmetic error, most often subtracting $E(X^2)$ from $\mu^2$ instead of the other way round.
Q1 (3 marks): (a) $E(X) = 1(0.1) + 2(0.2) + 3(0.4) + 4(0.3) = 0.1 + 0.4 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 2.9$ [1]. (b) $E(X^2) = 1(0.1) + 4(0.2) + 9(0.4) + 16(0.3) = 0.1 + 0.8 + 3.6 + 4.8 = 9.3$. So $\operatorname{Var}(X) = 9.3 - 2.9^2 = 9.3 - 8.41 = 0.89$ [1]. (c) $\sigma = \sqrt{0.89} \approx 0.943$. The distribution is centred at $2.9$, with individual values typically falling about $0.94$ away from that centre — which is a substantial spread relative to a range of only 1 to 4 [1].
Q2 (3 marks): (a) $C$ takes the value $8000$ with probability $0.02$, $1000$ with probability $0.05$, and $0$ with probability $1 - 0.02 - 0.05 = 0.93$ [1]. (b) $E(C) = 8000(0.02) + 1000(0.05) + 0(0.93) = 160 + 50 = 210$, so the expected payout is $\$210$ [1]. (c) Expected profit per policy is $300 - 210 = \$90$. The insurer is still exposed because the expected value describes a long-run average across many policies, not any single year: in a given year on a single policy the payout is $\$0$ with probability $0.93$ but $\$8000$ with probability $0.02$, and $\$8000$ dwarfs the $\$300$ premium. Insurers manage this by writing many independent policies, which is precisely the condition under which the average becomes reliable [1].
Q3 (3 marks): (a) The mean locates the centre of each distribution and here it is identical, so it cannot distinguish the lines. The standard deviation measures spread about that centre; line B's is ten times line A's, so B is more variable [1]. (b) No. Moments alone do not determine the proportion within a tolerance; the shape of each distribution matters. For example, let line A have length 50 mm with probability 0.98 and lengths $50-\sqrt{2}$ mm and $50+\sqrt{2}$ mm with probability 0.01 each. Its mean is 50 and its variance is $0.01(2)+0.01(2)=0.04$, so $\sigma=0.2$, but 98% are within 0.5 mm. Let line B have length 50 mm with probability 0.99 and lengths 30 mm and 70 mm with probability 0.005 each. Its mean is 50 and its variance is $0.005(20^2)+0.005(20^2)=4$, so $\sigma=2$, but 99% are within 0.5 mm. Thus B has the larger standard deviation yet a greater acceptable proportion; the given moments cannot rank the lines [1]. (c) The manager's statement could be appropriate when only total or average output over many components matters, such as forecasting total material used: variation in individual components is not the quantity being assessed, while both lines have the same mean [1].