Example 1 — BINS Check and Exact Probability
Setting: 6 light bulbs sampled; each independently defective with probability 0.15. \( X \) = number defective. Find \( P(X = 2) \).
Step 1 — Check BINS.
- B: Each bulb is defective (success) or not (failure). ✓
- I: Stated independent. ✓
- N: \( n = 6 \) fixed in advance. ✓
- S: \( p = 0.15 \) constant on every bulb. ✓
All four hold: \( X \sim B(6, 0.15) \).
Step 2 — Identify parameters.
\( n = 6 \), \( p = 0.15 \), \( q = 1 - p = 0.85 \), \( k = 2 \).
Step 3 — Apply the formula.
\[ P(X = 2) = \binom{6}{2}(0.15)^2(0.85)^4 = 15 \times 0.0225 \times 0.52200625 \approx \mathbf{0.1762} \]Interpretation: There is approximately a 17.6% chance that exactly 2 of the 6 bulbs are defective.
Example 2 — Cumulative Probabilities ("At Most" and "At Least")
Setting: \( X \sim B(6, 0.15) \) from Example 1. Find (a) \( P(X \leq 2) \) and (b) \( P(X \geq 2) \).
(a) \( P(X \leq 2) \) — sum three terms.
\[ P(X = 0) = \binom{6}{0}(0.15)^0(0.85)^6 = 1 \times 1 \times 0.3771 = 0.3771 \] \[ P(X = 1) = \binom{6}{1}(0.15)^1(0.85)^5 = 6 \times 0.15 \times 0.4437 = 0.3993 \] \[ P(X = 2) = 0.1762 \text{ (from Example 1)} \] \[ P(X \leq 2) = 0.3771 + 0.3993 + 0.1762 = \mathbf{0.8526} \]There is about an 85.3% chance that 2 or fewer bulbs are defective.
(b) \( P(X \geq 2) \) — complement approach (recommended).
"At least 2" translates formally to \( P(X \geq 2) = 1 - P(X \leq 1) \).
\[ P(X \leq 1) = P(X = 0) + P(X = 1) = 0.3771 + 0.3993 = 0.7764 \] \[ P(X \geq 2) = 1 - 0.7764 = \mathbf{0.2236} \]Pedagogical note — why complement for "at least k"?
Summing directly from \( k = 2 \) to \( k = 6 \) would require computing 5 individual terms. The complement \( 1 - P(X \leq 1) \) requires only 2 terms. Whenever "at least k" would mean summing more than 3 terms, the complement approach is almost always the more efficient path. The key insight: complement flips the sum direction, so you always work with whichever end of the distribution has fewer terms.
Example 3 — Computing \( \mu \) and \( \sigma_X \), then Interpreting in Context
Setting: Medication effective for each patient independently with probability 0.60; \( n = 20 \) patients. \( X \) = number for whom the medication is effective.
Verify BINS: B ✓ (effective/not), I ✓ (stated independent), N ✓ (\( n = 20 \) fixed), S ✓ (\( p = 0.60 \) constant). So \( X \sim B(20, 0.60) \).
\[ \mu = np = 20(0.60) = \mathbf{12} \] \[ \sigma_X^2 = np(1-p) = 20(0.60)(0.40) = 4.8 \] \[ \sigma_X = \sqrt{4.8} \approx \mathbf{2.19} \]Interpretation:
- \( \mu = 12 \): In repeated clinical trials of 20 patients each, the medication is effective for an average of 12 patients per trial. If many such trials were conducted, the long-run average would settle at 12.
- \( \sigma_X \approx 2.19 \): The number of effective outcomes typically deviates from 12 by about 2.19 patients. A result of 9 or 15 effective patients would be unusual but not extreme (roughly 1.4 standard deviations from the mean).
Example 4 — Find the Error (Non-Binomial Setting)
Setting: Five cards drawn from a 52-card deck without replacement. Student concludes \( X \sim B(5, 4/52) \).
Error identified: BINS condition I fails (dependent trials).
The student correctly identified Binary outcomes, fixed \( N = 5 \), and an initial probability of \( 4/52 \). However, drawing without replacement makes trials dependent:
- Draw 1: \( P(\text{ace}) = 4/52 \)
- If draw 1 was an ace: \( P(\text{ace on draw 2}) = 3/51 \neq 4/52 \)
- If draw 1 was not an ace: \( P(\text{ace on draw 2}) = 4/51 \neq 4/52 \)
Conditions I (independence) and S (constant \( p \)) both fail. The binomial model does not apply.
Correct model: Hypergeometric distribution.
\[ P(X = 2) = \frac{\binom{4}{2}\binom{48}{3}}{\binom{52}{5}} = \frac{6 \times 17296}{2598960} \approx \mathbf{0.0399} \]The student's binomial answer (≈ 0.0334) underestimates the true probability because it treats the changing-deck probability as if it were constant.