A sample mean of ₹28,000 is a good guess. A statement of how wrong it could be is far more useful, and that is what a confidence interval gives. It is also the most misread object in statistics, including by examiners’ options. This lesson builds the interval from the standard error, shows by simulation what its confidence level promises and what it does not, and covers the distributions, t, chi-square and F, that the intervals and the tests of the next two lessons are built on.
Ashanagar is an invented district. The statistics lessons use it for every worked example, so you meet the same households again as the ideas build: first as a list of numbers, then as a spread, then as a population to sample from.
It has 60 households, each with a monthly income in rupees. Unless a page says otherwise, those 60 are the whole population, and a “sample” means a few of them drawn at random. Where a page needs two variables, it uses a smaller set of 12 households with the head’s years of schooling beside income.
The figures are illustrative, made up once and fixed. They are not official statistics.
Lesson 3 gave us the standard error: the typical distance between a sample mean and the truth. A confidence interval turns that into a statement with two ends. Because the sample mean is close to normal, it falls within about two standard errors of μ in 95% of samples. Turn that around and μ lies within about two standard errors of the sample mean, in 95% of samples.
The piece after the ± is the margin of error or maximum error of the estimate. For 100 cattle whose weights have a standard deviation of 100 kg, the margin at 95% confidence is 1.96 × 100 ÷ √100 = 19.6, roughly 20 kg (DSE 2016). For a normal population with σ = 2 and a sample of 25 whose mean is 10, the margin is 1.96 × 2 ÷ 5 = 0.784 and the interval is 9.22 to 10.78, so 9.3, 9.8 and 10.6 all lie inside it (DSE 2012).
The sample mean X̄ has mean μ and standard error σ ÷ √n (derived earlier in this module), and for a normal population, or a large enough sample, it is normal. Standardising,
The normal table gives P(−1.96 ≤ Z ≤ 1.96) = 0.95. Everything here is a statement about the random X̄ for a fixed μ.
This says X̄ lands within 1.96 standard errors of μ in 95% of samples. It is the shaded band in the top picture below.
Multiply −1.96 SE ≤ X̄ − μ ≤ 1.96 SE through by −1, which reverses both signs and the direction of each inequality: −1.96 SE ≤ μ − X̄ ≤ 1.96 SE. Add X̄ to all three parts:
It is the same event described from the other side: “X̄ is within 1.96 SE of μ” and “μ is within 1.96 SE of X̄” are one statement. The pictures show both on every draw.
In the last line μ is a fixed number and the ends of the interval move with the sample. The 0.95 is therefore a property of the method before the sample is drawn. Once x̄ is known the interval is a fixed pair of numbers, and it either contains μ or it does not: the probability that this particular interval contains μ is 0 or 1. That is the meaning, and the standard misreading, tested in the next chapter.
Sixteen Ashanagar households give x̄ = 31 (₹ thousand). With σ = 13.37, the standard error is 13.37 ÷ 4 = 3.34 and the half-width is 1.96 × 3.34 = 6.55, so the 95% interval is 31 ± 6.55 = (24.45, 37.55). It catches the true mean, 28.78. A different sample of 16 would give a different interval, and about one in twenty of them would miss.
Replacing 1.96 by another point of the normal table changes the confidence level: 1.645 for 90% and 2.576 for 99%. When σ is estimated by s the table must be the t table, because the extra uncertainty in s widens the intervals.
Here is the sentence that causes the trouble: “there is a 95% probability that μ lies between 40 and 48”. It sounds right and is wrong. The population mean is a fixed number. It is either between 40 and 48 or it is not, and no randomness remains once the interval is written down. The randomness was in which sample you drew. The 95% describes the procedure: over repeated samples, 95% of the intervals it produces contain the true value.
The lab makes this concrete. Each row is the interval from one sample of Ashanagar households. The dashed line is the true mean, ₹28.78 thousand, which no one sample can see. Draw fifty samples at a time and count the rows that miss. Then change the confidence level, the sample size and the method, and watch the long-run percentage under the plot.
Uses the sample's own s and the t critical value with n − 1 degrees of freedom.
The count out of 50 moves around each time you redraw, about 47.5 on average. The 95% belongs to the method: over many samples about that share of intervals catch the true mean. It is not a probability attached to any one interval, which either contains the dashed line or does not.
The same reading disposes of other tempting statements:
A 95% interval holds exactly the values of μ that a two-sided test at the 5% level would not reject. It tells you everything the test does and a good deal more, since it shows the plausible size of the effect as well as whether zero is excluded. That is why confidence intervals are preferred to significance tests: they provide more information (Hyderabad 2016).
The formula above needs σ, which you almost never know. In practice σ is replaced by the sample standard deviation s, and that substitution adds a second source of error: s is itself a random variable. The ratio (x̄ − μ) ÷ (s/√n) is no longer standard normal. For a normal population it follows Student’s t distribution with n − 1 degrees of freedom, which looks like the normal curve with heavier tails.
The critical value t is larger than z, much larger for small n: with 5 degrees of freedom, the 95% value is 2.571, not 1.96, and with 15 degrees it is 2.131. The extra width pays for the uncertainty about s. As the sample grows the two converge. The coverage lab’s third button shows what happens if you ignore this: with n = 5 and the normal critical value, roughly 87% of intervals catch the truth, not 95%.
Three distributions turn up again and again in inference, all from a normal sample, and the next lab lets you stretch each one and read off its critical values.
With 5 degrees of freedom the tails are visibly fatter than the normal's, so the critical value (2.571) is well above 1.96. Slide df up and the two curves merge.
| Distribution | Built from | Used for |
|---|---|---|
| Standard normal, Z | A normal variable minus its mean, over its standard deviation. | Means when σ is known; large samples; proportions. |
| Chi-square, χ² | The sum of squares of n independent standard normal variables (n degrees of freedom). | Variances: (n − 1)S²/σ² is χ² with n − 1 df. Goodness-of-fit and independence tests. |
| Student’s t | A standard normal divided by the square root of an independent chi-square over its degrees of freedom. | Means when σ is estimated by s. |
| F | The ratio of two independent chi-squares, each divided by its degrees of freedom. | Comparing two variances; analysis of variance. |
These four definitions are a matching question in UGC NET 2023: the sum of squares of n independent standard normals is chi-square, a standard normal over the root of a chi-square over its df is t, the ratio of two chi-squares each over its df is F, and a normal minus its mean over its standard deviation is standard normal.
An interval is estimate ± critical value × standard error, so its width is 2 × critical value × s/√n. Three things move it, and exam questions ask about each.
Hyderabad 2018 asks the same thing from the other side: more accurate estimation, meaning a smaller interval, comes from accepting a higher significance level (a lower confidence level), not from a lower one, and not from a higher population variance. The sample mean itself does not enter the width at all.
Replace the standard error with that of Lesson 3 and estimate p by p̂. In the survey of 400 likely voters, 215 back the ruling party, so p̂ = 0.5375 and the standard error is 0.0249. The 95% interval is 0.5375 ± 1.96 × 0.0249 = 0.489 to 0.586. The interval includes 0.5, so the survey cannot rule out an even split.
For a normal sample, (n − 1)S²/σ² follows a chi-square distribution with n − 1 degrees of freedom. Pin that ratio between the chi-square points that cut off α/2 in each tail, then turn the inequality round to isolate σ². Because the chi-square curve is not symmetric the interval is not symmetric about S².
Standard errors and intervals have formulas for means, proportions and variances. For a median, a ratio or a Gini coefficient there is no simple formula. The bootstrap gets round that by treating the sample as a stand-in for the population: draw many new samples, with replacement, from the sample itself, compute the statistic each time, and use the spread of those values as an estimate of the sampling distribution. Its purpose is to obtain the sampling distribution of the parameters of interest (UGC NET 2025). It is exactly what the labs in this module have been doing, except that they resample from a known population and the bootstrap resamples from the one sample you have.
Definitions and one-step calculations. Most CUET and Hyderabad questions sit here.
Joint tables, standard errors and statement questions, up to JNU and IIT JAM level.
This topic’s hardest questions, from the DSE entrance, are worked through in Lesson 13: Estimation and confidence intervals.
These are questions from the TestStop bank. A free account answers 10 a day, each with its worked solution; All-Access opens every set with no daily limit.