ESI 6321 – Spring 2007

Exam 1 solutions

Problem 1
a) Denote by A, B, C, D, and E respectively, the following events:

A: heart failure is due to induced substances

B: heart failure is due to outside factors
C: heart failure is due to natural occurrences
D: heart failure is due to disease
E: heart failure is due to infection

P (A) = P (A | B) · P (B) + P (A | C) · P (C)

= 0.73 · 0.13 + 0 · 0.87
= 0.0949
b) P (D ∪ E) = P (D) + P (E). Now,
P (D) = P (D | B) · P (B) + P (D | C) · P (C)
= 0 · 0.13 + 0.27 · 0.87
= 0.2349,
and

P (E) = P (E | B) · P (B) + P (E | C) · P (C)

= 0 · 0.13 + 0.17 · 0.87
= 0.1479.
Thus P (D ∪ E) = 0.2349 + 0.1479 = 0.3828.

Problem 2
a)
22
P (B | A) =
30
77
P (B) =
100
P (B | A) 6= P (B) ⇒ events A and B are not independent

1
b)
22 11
P (B | A) = 30 = 30 = 0.733

Problem 3
Let A, B, C be the following events:

A = user is legitimate
B = user is fraudulent
C = call is originated from two or more metropolitan areas

From the problem statement we have:

P (C | B) = 0.3
P (C | A) = 0.01
P (B) = 0.0001

Through Bayes’ theorem, we can now compute the required probability:

P (C | B) · P (B)
P (B | C) =
P (C | B) · P (B) + P (C | A) · P (A)
P (C | B) · P (B)
=
P (C | B) · P (B) + P (C | A) · (1 − P (B))
0.3 · 0.0001
=
0.3 · 0.0001 + 0.01 · 0.9999
= 0.0029

Problem 4
Define PA , PB , PC to be the probabilities that respectively A, B, and C function properly.

(a) PA = P (all 20 ICs of A work) = (1 − 0.01)20 = 0.8179.

(b) PB = 1 − P (none of the 20 ICs of B works) = 1 − 0.0120 = 1 − 10−40 .

(c) PC = P (20 ICs of C work) + P (19 ICs of C work) = (1 − 0.01)20 + C19

20 · (1 − 0.01)19 · 0.011 =

0.98

(d) Let PD = P(product functions properly). Then PD = PA · PB · PC = .80.

(e) Apply Bayes rule.

P (product fails|set A fails) × P (set A fails) 1 × (1 − PA )
P (set A fails|product fails) = = = 0.91.
P (product fails) 1 − PD

2
(f) The product functions normally if, and only if, (i) all 20 ICs of A function and (ii) at least
one IC of B functions and (iii) 19 or 20 ICs of C function. Let X = number of non-failed
ICs when the product functions properly. Let XA , XB and XC be the number of functioning
(non-failed) ICs in respectively A, B, and C when the product functions properly. Then
X = XA + XB + XC . Using the additive property of expectation we can write:

E[X] = E[XA ] + E[XB ] + E[XC ].

Because of the way the product can function properly, we can claim that XA is also the
number of working ICs in set A given that A functions properly, XB the number of working
ICs in set B given that B functions properly, and XC the number of working ICs in set C
given that C functions properly.

1. Set A functions properly only if all its ICs are in a working condition. Therefore, XA = 20
with probability 1 and E[XA ] = 20.
2. Set B functions properly when at least one IC is functioning. Therefore:
20
X
E[XB ] = j · P (j ICs are working in set B | set B is working)
j=1
20
X P (j ICs are working in set B)
= j·
P (set B is working)
j=1
P20
j=1 j · Cj20 (1 − 0.01)j · 0.0120−j
=
PB
P20 20 (1 − 0.01)j · 0.0120−j
j=0 j · Cj
=
PB
20 · (1 − 0.01) 20 ∗ 0.99
= =
PB 1 − 10−40
= 19.8

3. Applying a logic similar to (2) above, we can derive:

P20
j=19 j · Cj20 (1 − 0.01)j · 0.0120−j 19 · 20 · 0.9919 · 0.01 + 20 · 0.9920
E[XC ] = = = 19.9
PC 0.98

Summing up 1), 2) and 3), we find E[X]:

E[X] = 20 + 19.8 + 19.9 = 59.7, which is rounded to 60.

This result may seem a bit surprising given that A, B and C function under different schemes.
However, because A has to work for the product to work, all its 20 IC components must work.
But given that sets B and C have similar components that are statistically indistinguishable,
the requirement on A is implicitly ”imposed” on B and C!!