Again, graphing these points will be useful.  The graph should have
"number of measurements" on the vertical axis, and "luminosity" on the
horizontal axis.  

(a) This time, the average of the measurements is at about 113 units.
This is again close to the place where there are the most measurements,
at about 115 units.  So the best estimate of the luminosity of this
asteroid is about 113 units.

(b) The FWHM appears to be about 12 units, so the margin of error is
half that amount or 6 units, or 6/113 = 5.3 percent.

(c) One point is much higher at 155 units than all the other units.
This one measurement is very likely systematically incorrect, and
could in fact be removed from the analysis if you knew it was
systematically incorrect.

One very subtle systematic effect is clear in the data as well.
Look at how the measurements changed from day to day:

  125
  120        o                                               o
  115     o     o                 o     o              o  o     o
  110  o           o           o           o         
  105                 o     o                 o       
  100                    o                       o
   95                                               o
   90
   ---------------------------------------------------------------
  DAY  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

(Day 11, at 155 units, is off the chart and not plotted.)  Notice
how there seems to be a pattern of brighter and darker, which seems
to vary over a period of time.  This could indicate a situation 
where the luminosity measurements vary not from purely random error,
but a systematic effect such as rotation, a binary system, or some
other physical phenomenon that caused a periodic effect.



**
****
****
****
****