Since we do not have the raw data that makes up the histogram in Question 6, we cannot calculate the mean of the data exactly. However, we can determine a range in which the mean must lie.
First, let's assume that all of the measured heights are as small as possible. This means that we assume that the \(1\) height in the interval \(135\) – \(140\) is actually \(135\) cm, the \(9\) heights in the interval \(140\) – \(145\) are all \(140\) cm, and so on. If we calculate the mean of all of these \(80\) numbers, then we get\[ \frac{1 \times 135 + 9 \times 140 + 44 \times 145 + 20 \times 150 + 5 \times 155 + 1 \times 160}{80} = \frac{11~710}{80} = 146.375\]From this calculation, we conclude that the mean of the \(80\) actual heights must be \(146.375\) cm or larger.
Second, let's assume that all of the measured heights are as large as possible. (This is a bit trickier as there is actually no "largest possible height" in each interval! What is the largest possible value of the \(1\) height in the interval \(135\) – \(140\)? We actually can't answer this question.) Since we know that the \(1\) height in the interval \(135\) – \(140\) must be smaller than \(140\), let's just take it to be \(140\) cm. Similarly, we take the \(9\) heights in the interval \(140\) – \(145\) to all be \(145\), and so on. If we calculate the mean of these \(80\) numbers, then we get \[ \frac{1 \times 140 + 9 \times 145 + 44 \times 150 + 20 \times 155 + 5 \times 160 + 1 \times 165}{80} = \frac{12~110}{80} = 151.375\]
From this calculation, we conclude that the mean of the \(80\) actual heights must be smaller than \(151.375\) cm.