A random sample is better than a census because it takes less time and costs less.
Chat with our AI personalities
its better because we often don't have to survey a large population, so a sample is quicker, easier, requires few ressources, little time and can be more accurate if a person is not there to answer it because a sample could represent that person.
Yes. If the sample is a random drawing from the population, then as the size increases, the relative frequency of each interval from the sample should be a better estimate of the relative frequency in the population. Now, in practical terms, increasing a small sample will have a larger effect than increasing a large sample. For example, increasing a sample from 10 to 100 will have a larger effect than increasing a sample from 1000 to 10,000. The one exception to this, that I can think of, is if the focus of the study is on a very rare occurrence.
A 'random' sample - covers all age groups, genders, and other criteria. A 'targeted' sample might only cover a small part of the population.
It's not.
Sampling can be more accurate than a census as there is greater control of interviewers and less chances of mistakes being made as the data is collated