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) 15 pupils — The frequencies are 5, 4, 3 and 3 pupils, and 5 + 4 + 3 + 3 = 15, so there are 15 pupils in the class. Choosing 6 pupils comes from adding the numbers of pets, 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 = 6, instead of the frequencies. Choosing 10 pupils comes from leaving out the '0 pets' row: 4 + 3 + 3 = 10. Choosing 18 pupils comes from counting the '3 pets' row twice: 5 + 4 + 3 + 3 + 3 = 18.
- (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.
- (c) Yes — with an estimate of 320, above the 250 limit. — Method: scale the sample proportion up to the whole batch to get an estimate, then compare that estimate with the 250 limit to reach a decision. Working: in the sample, 4 out of 50 boards are faulty, a proportion of 4 ÷ 50 = 0.08. Applying that proportion to the batch of 4,000 gives an estimate of 0.08 × 4000 = 320 faulty boards. Since 320 is more than 250, the factory should scrap the batch. Inverting the proportion, 50 ÷ 4 = 12.5, and treating that as a percentage of the batch, 12.5% × 4000 = 500, still gives 'yes' but from the wrong fraction, so it overstates the estimate. Comparing the raw number of faulty boards found in the sample, 4, directly with the 250 limit skips the scaling up to the batch altogether, and 4 is nowhere near 250, so that route wrongly says 'no'. Dividing the batch by the sample size, 4000 ÷ 50 = 80, finds how many samples of 50 fit into the batch but stops before multiplying by the 4 faulty boards found, so it also wrongly says 'no'. Always find the proportion in the sample first, scale it up to the whole batch, and only then compare the estimate with the limit given.
- (c) No, 90 cm is far outside the heights on the graph — Method: a line of best fit describes the trend only across the stretch of data it was drawn through; predicting beyond that stretch is extrapolation, and nothing in the data supports it. Working: the heights used to draw this line run from 150 cm to 180 cm, all of them Year 10 pupils, while 90 cm is 60 cm below the shortest of them and belongs to a two-year-old child, whose build follows no trend the graph has measured. Substituting anyway gives 0.9 × 90 − 85 = −4, a mass of −4 kg, which cannot exist. Answer: no, because 90 cm is far outside the heights on the graph. The distractors: saying a line of best fit cannot be used to predict at all throws away its main purpose, since a prediction made between the plotted values is perfectly sound; saying the line passes through all 20 points misdescribes a line of best fit, which is drawn to follow the trend of the points and will normally pass through few of them; saying the equation works for any value put into it treats an equation fitted to Year 10 heights as a law of nature, and the mass of −4 kg shows what that assumption produces.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) How much the temperatures varied over the seven days — Method: the range of a set of values is the largest value take away the smallest, so it is built from two values only and it measures the gap they leave between them. Working: the largest of the seven readings is 7 °C and the smallest is 2 °C, so the range is 7 − 2 = 5 °C. That figure says the week's readings covered a band 5 °C wide; it names no particular day and no particular reading. Answer: the range describes how much the temperatures varied over the seven days. The distractors: the temperature that occurred most often is the mode, which here is 3 °C, and a mode counts repeats instead of measuring a gap; the temperature typical of the week is an average, and the range is not an average, since it throws away every value lying between the two extremes; the number of different temperatures recorded is 6, a count of how many distinct values appear, while the range is a difference between two of them.
- (a) Negative correlation — As the age of the car increases, the points fall towards a lower value, so the value decreases as the age increases. This falling pattern is a negative correlation. A positive correlation would show the points rising together instead. No correlation would apply only if the points showed no pattern at all, and correlation is not the same as causation — strong causation is not a type of correlation.
- (d) 25% — First find the number of fruit cakes: 80 − 34 − 26 = 20. Then write this as a percentage of the total: 20 ÷ 80 × 100 = 25%. Giving 20% comes from reporting the count of fruit cakes, 20, directly as a percentage, without dividing by the total of 80 first. Giving 32.5% computes the percentage of chocolate cakes instead of fruit cakes: 26 ÷ 80 × 100 = 32.5%. Giving 42.5% computes the percentage of sponge cakes instead of fruit cakes: 34 ÷ 80 × 100 = 42.5%.
- (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.
- (d) 1100 — Method: to combine two samples of different sizes, add the faulty counts together and add the sample sizes together before scaling up, rather than treating the two samples separately. Working: the combined sample found 34 + 21 = 55 scratched cases out of 100 + 50 = 150 cases checked, a proportion of 55 ÷ 150. Applying that proportion to the week's production of 3,000 gives an estimate of 55 ÷ 150 × 3000 = 1100 scratched cases. Averaging the two shifts' proportions instead of combining their totals, (34 ÷ 100 + 21 ÷ 50) ÷ 2 = 0.38, gives 0.38 × 3000 = 1140 — this treats the two samples as equally weighted even though Shift A checked twice as many cases as Shift B. Using only Shift A's sample, 34 ÷ 100 × 3000 = 1020, ignores Shift B's cases completely. Using only Shift B's sample, 21 ÷ 50 × 3000 = 1260, ignores Shift A's cases completely. When two samples are different sizes, combine their totals before finding the proportion — do not average the two proportions, and do not use only one shift's sample.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 29 — There are 40 − 24 = 16 males, and 15 of them prefer cardio, so 16 − 15 = 1 male prefers weights. There are 24 females, and 10 prefer weights, so 24 − 10 = 14 females prefer cardio. Altogether, 15 + 14 = 29 people prefer cardio. Choosing 15 only counts the males who prefer cardio and forgets the females. Choosing 11 adds the two weights figures, 1 + 10 = 11, instead of the two cardio figures. Choosing 30 comes from 40 − 10, subtracting only the number of females who prefer weights from the grand total, rather than finding both cardio sub-totals separately.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.