Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16
Scatter graphs, correlation and lines of best fit worksheet — GCSE Foundation
Fifteen questions on "scatter graphs, correlation and lines of best fit" — DfE statement S6. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.
Answer key: Scatter graphs, correlation and lines of best fit worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (c) A line of best fit — Method: the straight line drawn on a scatter graph is named from the job it does — it is chosen so that it follows the whole set of points as closely as possible. Working: the line passes through the middle of the points, with roughly as many points above it as below it, and it need not pass through any of the plotted points at all; the name given to the straight line chosen in that way is a line of best fit. Answer: a line of best fit. The distractors: a line of symmetry comes from confusing a trend with symmetry, which is a property of a shape rather than of a set of data; a horizontal line through the mean comes from thinking the trend is shown by an average, when a horizontal line would say that the vertical quantity does not change and so show no correlation; a line joining the first and last points comes from thinking the line must join the two extreme points, which lets two points decide a trend that all of the points should share in.
- (c) Strong negative correlation — Method: correlation is described by two things — the direction the points take as the graph is read from left to right, and how closely the points lie to a single straight line. Working: reading the pairs in order of age, the ages rise 14, 18, 23, 27, 31, 36, 42, 49 while the scores fall 92, 88, 85, 80, 78, 74, 70, 65; the score falls at every single step, with no reversal anywhere, so the points fall from left to right and lie close to a straight line. Answer: strong negative correlation — negative for the falling direction, strong because every point follows the pattern. The distractors: strong positive correlation comes from noticing a clear pattern and calling any clear pattern positive, without checking the direction; weak negative correlation comes from reading the direction correctly but judging points that do not lie exactly on a straight line to be only loosely related, when these eight fall without a single exception; no correlation comes from reading a falling trend as though it showed no relationship at all, when a falling trend is itself a relationship.
- (b) At 0 guests, the model predicts 2 m of table — The y-intercept of a line of best fit y = mx + c is the value of y when x = 0. Here y = 0.5 × 0 + 2 = 2, so the line predicts a table length of 2 m when there are 0 guests. The 2 m does not grow as more guests arrive — that role belongs to the gradient, 0.5 — so an option saying each extra guest adds 2 m has swapped the two numbers around. The 2 is a length in metres, not a number of guests, so an option requiring 2 guests before set-up has misread its units. And the table length does change with x, since it is 0.5x + 2 and not a fixed value, so an option claiming the table is always 2 m ignores the 0.5x term completely.
- (d) 20 — 0.4x + 1 = 9, so 0.4x = 9 − 1 = 8, and 8 ÷ 0.4 = 20, so 20 sessions are needed. Choosing 23 divides 9 by 0.4 without first subtracting the 1: 9 ÷ 0.4 = 22.5, rounded up to 23. Choosing 25 subtracts the wrong way, adding the 1 instead of taking it away: 9 + 1 = 10, and 10 ÷ 0.4 = 25. Choosing 2 misplaces the decimal point in the gradient, dividing by 4 instead of by 0.4: 8 ÷ 4 = 2.
- (a) No, the size of the fire affects both of the quantities — Method: correlation says that two quantities change together; a claim that one of them produces the other is a further claim, and it needs evidence that a scatter graph on its own cannot give. Working: the graph does show strong positive correlation, so more engines did go with greater damage. But neither quantity was set by the researchers: both were decided by how large the fire was. A large blaze brings many appliances and also destroys a great deal, while a small one brings few and destroys little, so a third quantity is driving both of the recorded ones. Answer: no, because the size of the fire affects both of the quantities. The distractors: saying the correlation is negative contradicts the graph, which shows the two quantities rising together, and reaching the right verdict from a false reading of the data is not the reason the mark is for; saying that strong positive correlation shows one quantity causes the other is the assumption the question exists to test, and no strength of correlation can establish cause; saying the points lie close to the line of best fit describes how strong the correlation is, and strength and cause are different matters entirely.
- (d) 210 — 350 − 150 = 200. 200 ÷ 10 = 20, so the gradient is 20. Using the point (5, 150): 20 × 5 = 100, so 150 − 100 = 50 is the intercept, giving the line y = 20x + 50. At x = 8: 20 × 8 = 160, and 160 + 50 = 210, so the estimated number of visitors is 210. Choosing 160 stops after 20 × 8 = 160 and forgets to add the intercept of 50. Choosing 250 comes from averaging the two given y-values: 150 + 350 = 500, and 500 ÷ 2 = 250, instead of using the line's equation. Choosing 240 assumes the visitors are directly proportional to the hours of sunshine using the first point, 150 × 8 ÷ 5 = 240, which ignores that the line does not pass through the origin.
- (c) Height 170 cm, mass 65 kg — Method: a point on a scatter graph is written as a pair of coordinates in which the horizontal value is written first and the vertical value second, so each value is matched to the quantity named on its own axis. Working: in (170, 65) the value 170 is the horizontal coordinate and the horizontal axis shows height in centimetres, so the height is 170 cm; the value 65 is the vertical coordinate and the vertical axis shows mass in kilograms, so the mass is 65 kg. Answer: height 170 cm, mass 65 kg, each with the unit named on its own axis. The distractors: height 65 cm and mass 170 kg come from reading the pair the wrong way round, which would describe an impossible person; height 170 cm and mass 170 kg come from reading the horizontal coordinate for both quantities and never using the second number; height 235 cm and mass 105 kg come from combining the two coordinates, 170 + 65 and 170 − 65, instead of reading them separately.
- (c) The data show a link only; a third factor may affect both — Method: a study of this kind measures two quantities and reports how they change together; deciding that one of them produces the other is a further claim, and it needs evidence that the measurements alone cannot give. Working: the study shows that more coffee goes with better concentration, which is a positive correlation; but a third factor that was never measured, such as how motivated someone is, could raise both the coffee drinking and the concentration, and the concentration could equally be what leads to the extra coffee. Answer: the data show a link only, because a third factor may be affecting both quantities, so no claim about cause can be made. The distractors: calling the conclusion safe because the correlation is positive treats the direction of a correlation as proof of cause, which no direction can give; calling it wrong because the correlation is negative misreads the direction of the relationship, since the study reports both quantities rising together; saying the two quantities are not linked denies the correlation the study actually found, when what fails is only the claim about cause.
- (b) £11.00 — 1.5 × 6 = 9, and 9 + 2 = 11, so the estimated cost is £11.00. Choosing £9.00 stops after 1.5 × 6 = 9 and forgets to add the £2. Choosing £12.00 adds the mass and the constant first and then multiplies: 6 + 2 = 8, and 8 × 1.5 = 12.00. Choosing £13.50 swaps the gradient and the intercept, using y = 2x + 1.5 instead: 2 × 6 = 12, and 12 + 1.5 = 13.50.
- (c) Neither causes the other; sunshine links both. — Both ice cream sales and sunburn cases tend to rise on hot, sunny days, so the amount of sunshine is a third factor linked to both — neither variable causes the other. Saying ice cream sales cause the sunburn assumes a causal link in one direction that the correlation alone cannot establish. Saying sunburn cases cause the ice cream sales assumes the reverse causal link, which is no more justified. Saying a strong correlation always means causation is the general error this question is testing: correlation, however strong, does not by itself prove that one variable causes the other.
- (d) 38, and fairly confident, as 12 °C is inside the range — Method: substitute the forecast temperature into the equation of the line of best fit, then judge the prediction by where that temperature sits among the data the line was drawn from. Working: putting x = 12 into y = −3x + 74 gives −3 × 12 + 74 = 38, so the line predicts 38 hot chocolates. The recorded temperatures run from 4 °C to 18 °C, and 12 °C lies inside that interval, so this is interpolation, the safer kind of prediction. Answer: 38, and fairly confident, as 12 °C is inside the range; the owner should still expect the true figure to differ a little, since the points only lie near the line and not on it. The distractors: being completely certain treats a line of best fit as a rule that fixes each day's sales, when it describes a trend that individual days depart from; saying 12 °C is outside the range misreads the interval 4 °C to 18 °C, and the wrong warning would be attached to a sound prediction; 110 comes from −3 × 12 being taken as +36, giving 36 + 74 = 110, which loses the negative gradient and so predicts that a warm day sells more hot chocolate than a cold one.
- (b) A person's shoe size and their favourite colour — A person's shoe size is not linked to which colour they prefer, so these two show no correlation. The other three pairs are all genuinely correlated: distance travelled and fuel used rise together, which is positive correlation; hours of revision and test score generally rise together, which is also positive correlation; and as outdoor temperature rises, fewer woolly hats are sold, which is negative correlation. Negative correlation is still a real relationship between two variables — it is not the same thing as no relationship at all, so the temperature and hats pair is not the answer to this question.
- (a) 23 minutes — Method: the equation of a line of best fit converts a value of x into a predicted value of y, so substitute the known number of pages for x and evaluate. Working: x is the number of pages, so put x = 10 into y = 2x + 3. Multiplication is carried out before addition, so 2 × 10 + 3 = 23. Answer: 23 minutes, and it is a prediction of the trend rather than a promise about any one chapter. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from working out 2 × 10 and stopping there, leaving out the 3 that the line adds; 26 minutes comes from reading the equation as y = 2(x + 3), adding first and then doubling, so 2 × 13 = 26; 13 minutes comes from adding 10 and 3 and never using the gradient at all, which treats the 2 as though it were not there.
- (a) Priya — A line of best fit should be drawn so that the plotted points are roughly balanced above and below it. Work out the difference between the two counts for each pupil: Amir 10 − 2 = 8; Kofi 10 − 2 = 8 (10 below and 2 above); Leah 12 − 0 = 12; Priya 6 − 6 = 0. Priya's line has the smallest difference, an exact balance of 6 above and 6 below, so her line is drawn correctly. Amir's line has 10 of the 12 points above it, so it is drawn too low. Kofi's line has 10 of the 12 points below it, so it is drawn too high. Leah's line has every single point below it, so it is not a line of best fit at all.
- (b) 120, unreliable — x = 25 is outside 1 to 12 — The line of best fit is y = 4x + 20. 4 × 25 = 100, and 100 + 20 = 120, so the estimate is y = 120. But x = 25 lies far outside the plotted range of 1 to 12 years, so this is an extrapolation, and the estimate is not reliable. Reaching 100 instead of 120 comes from 4 × 25 = 100 with the intercept of 20 left out — still correctly flagged as unreliable, but the wrong value. Calling the estimate reliable simply because it was calculated correctly, giving 120, wrongly assumes that a correct calculation is automatically trustworthy, ignoring that x = 25 lies far beyond the data actually collected. Reaching 68, from 4 × 12 = 48 and 48 + 20 = 68, substitutes x = 12, the top of the plotted range, instead of the assistant's actual x = 25, and wrongly calls that reliable because 12 lies inside the range.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.