The skill assessed is representing a categorical variable with tables, using frequency and relative frequency to evaluate preferred new class types among 160 members. Choice C is supported by yoga's relative frequency of 0.325, or 32.5%, the largest proportion, greater than strength training at 27.5%. Evidence includes 52/160 = 0.325, confirming its lead. A common distractor is choice A, claiming strength training at about 44%, but that's the frequency, not the 27.5% relative. Choice D similarly mistakes dance's frequency 28 for 28%. A transferable lesson for categorical tables is to distinguish frequencies from relative frequencies when making proportion-based claims, and verify modes by comparing decimals or percentages directly.

The skill tested here involves representing a categorical variable with tables, focusing on interpreting frequencies and relative frequencies for commute modes in a sample of 200 adults. Choice C is supported as the relative frequency for driving alone is 0.490, or about 49%, and it is the largest category, exceeding public transit at 23% and others. This is evidenced by the frequency of 98, which is 98/200 = 0.49, confirming it's the mode. A frequent distractor is choice E, claiming the frequency for bike/walk is 0.110 adults, but 0.110 is the relative frequency, while the actual frequency is 22, mixing up the two columns. Choice D incorrectly adds carpool and bike/walk to over half (0.170 + 0.110 = 0.280), which is less than 0.5. A transferable mini-lesson for categorical tables is to always verify proportions by dividing frequencies by the total and compare them to assess dominance or combinations, avoiding assumptions about aggregates without calculation.

This question assesses the skill of representing a categorical variable with tables by interpreting frequency and relative frequency to identify supported statements about students' preferred academic support methods. The data supports choice B because the relative frequency for one-on-one tutoring is $0.350$, or $35%$, which is indeed the highest proportion among the options, as confirmed by comparing it to $0.250$, $0.200$, $0.150$, and $0.050$. Evidence from the table shows 42 students chose this out of 120, yielding exactly $35%$, outperforming others like small-group sessions at $25%$. A common distractor is choice C, which claims about 18% preferred teacher office hours, but the actual relative frequency is $0.150$ or 15%, likely confusing the frequency count of 18 with a percentage. Another distractor, choice D, states about 6% for peer mentoring, but it's precisely 5%, highlighting the need for accurate reading. In interpreting categorical tables, a key lesson is to use relative frequencies for proportions and compare them directly to identify modes or rankings, ensuring calculations align with the total sample size for validity.

The skill here involves representing a categorical variable with tables by analyzing frequency and relative frequency for preferred reminder methods in 110 patients. Choice A is supported because email has a frequency of 27, exceeding phone calls at 22, indicating more patients prefer email. Evidence from the table confirms 27 > 22, directly comparing counts. A common distractor is choice B, claiming text messages at about 55%, but it's 0.500 or 50%, an overestimation. Choice D says phone calls at about 22.0%, mistaking frequency for relative frequency (20%). A mini-lesson on categorical tables is to compare frequencies for count-based claims and relative frequencies for proportions, calculating totals or sums to validate statements about majorities or preferences.

This problem focuses on the skill of representing a categorical variable with tables, interpreting frequency and relative frequency for primary homework devices in 90 students. Choice C is supported, with laptops at 0.433 or about 43.3%, the most common, surpassing phones at 26.7%. This is backed by 39/90 ≈ 0.433, the highest. A typical distractor is choice E, stating the frequency for phone is 0.267 students, confusing relative frequency with the actual count of 24. Choice D wrongly adds desktops and tablets to 63.3%, but it's 30%. For interpreting categorical tables, use relative frequencies to assess prevalence and add them for combinations, ensuring you reference the correct column to avoid mixing counts and proportions.

The skill evaluated is representing a categorical variable with tables, interpreting frequency and relative frequency for social media platforms associated with a brand in 140 customers. Choice B is supported, with Instagram at 56 respondents and 0.400 or 40%, the most common. Evidence includes 56/140 = 0.4, outperforming others. A key distractor is choice C, claiming YouTube at about 28%, but 28 is frequency, not the 20% relative. Choice D errs by adding Facebook and YouTube to 10%, when it's 30%. A transferable mini-lesson for categorical tables is to use frequencies for counts and relative frequencies for percentages, verifying combinations by summing proportions to check aggregate claims accurately.

This question targets the skill of representing a categorical variable with tables by examining frequency and relative frequency for recycling behaviors in 100 students. The statement in choice B is supported, as often has 0.340 or about 34%, the highest relative frequency, exceeding always at 28%. This is evidenced by 34/100 = 0.34, making it the mode. A key distractor is choice D, which states the frequency for never is 0.120 students, but 0.120 is the relative frequency, while frequency is 12. Choice A incorrectly identifies always as most common, ignoring the higher count for often. In working with categorical tables, always calculate and compare relative frequencies to spot the dominant category, and combine them for aggregate claims to avoid errors in interpretation.

This problem evaluates the ability to represent a categorical variable with tables by analyzing frequency and relative frequency for lunch beverage choices among 150 students. The data supports choice C since water has a relative frequency of 0.420, or 42%, and it's the highest, surpassing soda at 24%. Supporting evidence includes the frequency of 63, where 63/150 = 0.42, clearly the mode. A typical distractor is choice A, stating juice is about 21%, but 0.140 is 14%, possibly mistaking the frequency 21 for a percentage. Choice E errs by saying the relative frequency for coffee/tea is 30, confusing it with the frequency count. For interpreting categorical tables, remember to differentiate counts from proportions and use relative frequencies to determine popularity, calculating sums for combined categories to check claims like majorities.

This question tests representing a categorical variable with tables, using frequency and relative frequency for after-school activities in 125 students. Choice B is supported as sports has 0.400 or 40%, the most common, higher than clubs at 24.8%. This is evidenced by 50/125 = 0.4, the mode. A frequent distractor is choice A, stating clubs at about 31%, but 31 is the frequency, not the 24.8% relative. Choice C incorrectly calls homework the least, despite it exceeding part-time jobs. In interpreting categorical tables, identify the highest relative frequency for the most common category and compare counts carefully for rankings, avoiding confusion between absolute and proportional values.

The skill here is representing a categorical variable with tables, interpreting frequency and relative frequency for preferred book formats in a sample of 80 patrons. Choice D is backed by the data, with print at 0.550 or 55%, the highest proportion, outranking e-books at 25%. Evidence comes from 44/80 = 0.55, establishing it as the most common. A common distractor is choice B, claiming audiobooks at about 12%, but it's 0.150 or 15%, likely a misreading of the table. Choice E says other at 4%, but it's 0.050 or 5%, a slight but incorrect approximation. A useful mini-lesson on categorical tables is to rely on relative frequencies for percentage claims and compare them to identify the least or most preferred options, ensuring approximations align closely with exact values.