Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16
Statistics worksheet — GCSE Foundation
Fifteen questions across the statistics statements at Foundation tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Calculator
Answer key: Statistics worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (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.
- (a) No correlation — Shoe size has no real relationship with spelling ability, and the points here are scattered with no rising or falling trend, so this is no correlation. A positive correlation would show the points rising together, and a negative correlation would show them falling as one increases; neither pattern is present here. Strong correlation is not correct either, since strength only applies once a positive or negative trend exists, and there isn't one.
- (a) Minutes a candle has burned and length remaining — As a candle burns for longer, less of it remains, so these two variables move in opposite directions as one increases — that is negative correlation. A pupil's shoe size generally increases as they get older, so age and shoe size show positive correlation, not negative, since both rise together. A football team's shirt colour is not a numerical quantity linked to how many matches it wins, so shirt colour and number of wins show no correlation at all. The number of letters in a pupil's name has no real connection to their ability in maths, so that pair also shows no correlation.
- (d) 24 — Method: for a sample in proportion to the population, apply the same fraction that each group makes up of the whole population to the size of the sample. Working: women make up 300 out of the 500 members, a fraction of 300 ÷ 500 = 0.6. Applying that fraction to the sample of 40 gives 0.6 × 40 = 24 women. Splitting the sample evenly, 40 ÷ 2 = 20, ignores that the club has more women than men and treats the two groups as equal in size, which they are not. Misreading the sample size as 50 instead of 40, then applying the 3:2 ratio of women to men, 3 ÷ 5 × 50 = 30, uses the right ratio but the wrong sample total. Working out the number of MEN instead of women, 200 ÷ 500 × 40 = 16, answers a different question — how many men, not how many women, belong in the sample. Always apply each group's own share of the population to the sample size, and check which group the question is actually asking about.
- (c) It is not representative, as she picked her own friends — Method: judge a sample by asking whether the pupils in it were chosen in a way that gives the whole school a fair chance of being heard. Working: Isla's friends are a group she formed herself, and friends tend to share tastes, so their favourite programme is likely to match hers rather than the school's, and pupils in other year groups and other friendship groups had no chance at all of being asked; the fault lies in how the pupils were selected, not in how many of them there were. Answer: it is not representative, as she picked her own friends. The distractors: the reply blaming the size claims the pupils were picked at random, which is false here, and it is the common mistake of thinking a biased sample can be cured by making it bigger; the reply calling the sample too large is false in the other direction, as a survey is never spoilt by collecting more replies; the reply that the sample is fine treats attending the school as enough, which would make any group of pupils in the building a fair sample.
- (c) No — 8 from one class is too small to represent the school. — Method: judge reliability by asking whether the sample is both large enough, and spread across the population, relative to what it is meant to represent. Working: 8 pupils is a tiny fraction of the school's 1,000 pupils, and all 8 come from a single class rather than a range of year groups, so the sample is both too small and too narrow to represent the whole school reliably. She is not right. Saying any sample size gives an equally reliable estimate ignores that reliability generally improves with a larger, more representative sample. Saying the method is unreliable because it was not done online is not a reason connected to sample size or representativeness at all. Saying 8 is reliable because it is more than half her class compares the sample to the wrong population — the school has 1,000 pupils, not one class. Always judge a sample's size against the population it is meant to represent, not against a smaller group within it.
- (b) 135 — Method: use the sample to find the PROPORTION of left-handed pupils, then apply that same proportion to the whole school population. Working: in the sample, 6 out of 40 pupils are left-handed, a proportion of 6 ÷ 40 = 0.15. Applying that proportion to the school's 900 pupils gives an estimate of 0.15 × 900 = 135 pupils. Giving 6 simply repeats the number of left-handed pupils IN THE SAMPLE, without scaling up to the whole school at all. Multiplying the population by the number of left-handed pupils in the sample without first dividing by the sample size, 900 × 6 = 5400, badly overestimates — that is more pupils than the whole school has. Dividing the population by the sample size but forgetting to multiply by the number of left-handed pupils found, 900 ÷ 40 = 22.5, finds the scale factor but stops one step short of using it. Always find the proportion in the sample first, then scale that same proportion up to the population.
- (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.
- (d) Only internet users reach the website; others are excluded. — Method: a sample is biased when it systematically leaves out part of the population, or systematically over-represents another part. Working: anyone without internet access, or who does not visit the council's website, has NO chance of being included — the sample is drawn only from internet-using residents, which is not the whole town. Saying too many people might respond because the survey is free confuses bias with sample size — bias is about who CAN be reached, not how many respond. Saying people might lie describes a different problem, response honesty, not who was sampled in the first place. Saying online surveys cannot be anonymous is not a reason connected to bias at all. A sample is biased when part of the population has no chance of being included, whatever the reason for that.
- (b) Interpolation — The salary is being estimated for a value of x between 1 and 15, which is inside the range of x-values that were actually plotted, so this is interpolation. Extrapolation would apply if the estimate used a value of x below 1 or above 15, outside the plotted range. Correlation describes the relationship between the two variables, not the reliability of an estimate, and causation describes one variable actually causing a change in the other, which is a different idea altogether — neither is the word being asked for here.
- (c) Club members probably eat differently from most people — Method: a sample is biased when the group it is drawn from differs from the population in the very thing the survey is measuring, so compare the subgroup with the population on that quantity. Working: the survey measures eating habits, and people who join a sports club take more exercise than average and are known to eat differently from the town as a whole, so their replies pull the results away from the true picture for the town however many of them are asked. Answer: club members probably eat differently from most people. The distractors: the reply about the number of members treats bias as a question of size, but a large biased sample is still biased; the reply that the members were picked at random is false, since the council picked a club rather than picking residents, and it confuses bias with non-response; the reply that everyone asked lives in the town notes something true of the members but draws the false conclusion that the sample therefore covers the town, when a sample must reflect a population and not merely be taken from inside it.
- (d) 648 kg — Method: to estimate a total from a sample, multiply the sample's mean by the number of items in the whole population, then check the units the question asks for. Working: 32.4 g × 20,000 = 648,000 g. Converting to kilograms, 648,000 ÷ 1,000 = 648 kg. This is only an estimate, not an exact total, because it assumes every one of the 20,000 packets has exactly the sample mean mass, when in reality individual packets vary above and below it. Giving 1.62 kg multiplies the mean by 50, the SAMPLE size, instead of by 20,000, the number of packets actually made that day — this finds the total mass of the 50 sampled packets, not the day's production. Giving 32.4 kg treats the sample mean itself, in grams, as if it already were the day's total mass in kilograms, skipping the scaling up altogether. Giving 648,000 kg correctly scales the mean up to the whole day's production but never converts the answer from grams to kilograms, leaving it 1,000 times too large. Always scale a sample's mean up by the SIZE OF THE WHOLE POPULATION, and always finish by checking the units the question asks for.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 26 — Method: a line of best fit lets one quantity be predicted from the other, so the score is substituted into the equation of the line and the resulting inequality is solved for the number of hours. Working: a score of at least 80 means 2.5x + 15 ≥ 80; taking 15 from both sides gives 2.5x ≥ 65, and dividing both sides by 2.5 gives x ≥ 26, so the least whole number of hours is 26. Checking, 2.5 × 26 + 15 = 80, which does reach the target. Answer: 26 hours — and this is only an estimate, because a line of best fit predicts a trend rather than an individual result, and a prediction made outside the range of hours the pupils actually revised for would be an extrapolation and less reliable still. The distractors: 27 comes from reaching 26 and then rounding up again, although 26 hours already gives a score of exactly 80; 32 comes from 80 ÷ 2.5, which ignores the 15 in the equation of the line; 38 comes from (80 + 15) ÷ 2.5, that is from adding the 15 instead of subtracting it when rearranging.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.