Margin of Error
Response to Discussion 5b
The margin of error can be empirically referred to the anticipated deviation of the exact estimate. Since in the exit poll, the pollsters are potentially unable to provide the exact results, they intend to present an estimated result based on the trends set by previous results along with the current inclination of the voters support. This is why they tend to integrate the margin of error in order to provide the vulnerable dimensions that might considerably vary the estimated result.
In the current case, as the given margin of error is 3%, it is evident that the candidate X is supposed to have 51% votes or 57% votes in thy bag, as mentioned in the scenario. In this regard, before arriving to a tangible conclusion, the axioms that backed the consideration of the margin of error need to be posed in order to judge the proportion of authenticity of such estimation (Pachur et al. 2013). These axioms appear to be typically concerned about the prevalent record of accomplishment of the respective candidate along with the opinions of the provincial voters of the centre from where the candidate is appeared for elections. This, apart from judging the validity of the margin of errors, is potent enough to suggest whether the margin of reconsideration is in favour of the candidate or against him/her (Bohannon, 2017). Thus, in terms of information, the estimator also need to have access of such data in order to ensure a considerable authenticity of the proclaimed estimate.
It is very evident from the above mentioned discussion is margin of error is nothing but the fraction of approximation subjected to the added data. In order to ensure the validity of the estimation along with making it more convincing, it is imperative to mention the fraction of approximation. Furthermore, it is also imperative to declare the trends of the provincial voters coupled with the account of accomplishment of the respective candidate.