becuase it is more accurate.
less bias and error occur when sample size is larger
If I take 10 items (a small sample) from a population and calculate the standard deviation, then I take 100 items (larger sample), and calculate the standard deviation, how will my statistics change? The smaller sample could have a higher, lower or about equal the standard deviation of the larger sample. It's also possible that the smaller sample could be, by chance, closer to the standard deviation of the population. However, A properly taken larger sample will, in general, be a more reliable estimate of the standard deviation of the population than a smaller one. There are mathematical equations to show this, that in the long run, larger samples provide better estimates. This is generally but not always true. If your population is changing as you are collecting data, then a very large sample may not be representative as it takes time to collect.
When you don't have the population standard deviation, but do have the sample standard deviation. The Z score will be better to do as long as it is possible to do it.
Because the whole population might be too large to sample. A good example is the population of the world. At nearly 7 billion people, it would be unrealistic to sample each person to determine some factor that you are looking at. Generally, we sample a subset of the population, taking into account differences (or errors) that might result, in this case, regional and cultural, in order to estimate the behavior of the larger population.
A large matrix with small pixel will give a better resolution.
1. Better chance of uniform sample. 2. Material for confirmations if needed.
they are better and reproduces faster
yes
It is better able to defend its national interests.
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.
There about the same
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.
How big humans are have nothing to do with it.
A random sample is better than a census because it takes less time and costs less.
Whether or not a wedding chapel is a better setting for a small family wedding than a large church is really a matter of preference. Chapel weddings tend more cozy and casual than large church weddings.
A larger random sample will always give a better estimate of a population parameter than a smaller random sample.