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.
- (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) Correlation is a link; causation is one causing the other — Method: the two words describe different claims — one is about a pattern in the data, the other is about what produced that pattern. Working: correlation says only that two quantities tend to change together, which is something a scatter graph can display; causation says that a change in one quantity actually brings about the change in the other, which needs evidence a scatter graph cannot supply, because a third quantity may be driving both. Answer: correlation is a link between the quantities, while causation is one quantity causing the change in another. The distractors: the statement giving causation as the link and correlation as the cause simply swaps the two words over; the statement that the words mean the same thing is the classic error of reading a correlation as proof of cause; the statement that a scatter graph shows causation but not correlation reverses what a scatter graph can do, since the pattern it displays is exactly the correlation.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 156 cm — Method: to combine two groups' means, multiply each group's mean by its own number of pupils, add the two totals together, then divide by the total number of pupils in both groups. Working: 20 × 150 = 3,000 cm for the boys and 10 × 168 = 1,680 cm for the girls, giving a combined total of 3,000 + 1,680 = 4,680 cm. Dividing by all 30 pupils gives 4,680 ÷ 30 = 156 cm. Giving 159 cm averages the two means, (150 + 168) ÷ 2, treating the two groups as if they had the same number of pupils, when there are twice as many boys as girls. Giving 4,680 cm finds the correct combined total height but stops there, forgetting the final division by the 30 pupils. Giving 234 cm divides the combined total by 20, the number of boys only, forgetting that the total also includes the 10 girls. Always weight each mean by its own group size, and always divide by the TOTAL number of pupils in both groups combined.
- (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.
- (b) Positive correlation — Method: the type of correlation is named from the direction the points take as the scatter graph is read from left to right. Working: the points rise from left to right, so as the arm span read on the horizontal axis increases, the height read on the vertical axis increases as well; two quantities that increase together show positive correlation. Answer: positive correlation. The distractors: negative correlation comes from naming the direction the wrong way round, since a negative correlation needs the points to fall as the graph is read from left to right; no correlation comes from treating points that are spread out rather than sitting exactly on a line as though they showed no relationship; direct proportion comes from confusing a rising trend with proportion, which would additionally need the line through the points to pass through the origin and would mean doubling one quantity doubles the other.
- (d) Only families with strong feelings bothered to reply. — Method: a survey has non-response bias when only some of the people asked actually reply, and those who do are not a typical cross-section of everyone who was asked. Working: only 30 of the 200 families sent back their questionnaire, and 27 of those 30 — the great majority — said they were unhappy. Families who feel strongly about an issue, particularly those with a complaint, are far more likely to make the effort to reply than families who are simply satisfied and see no need to say anything, so the 30 replies over-represent unhappy families. Saying the families who replied were picked at random by the school gets the sampling the wrong way round: nobody picked them — they picked themselves by deciding to reply, and that is precisely why they are not a typical cross-section of all 200. Saying postal surveys always have low response rates restates that the response was low without explaining why a low response rate, on its own, makes a result unrepresentative — it is the reason FOR the low response, not the low response itself, that causes the bias here. Saying that the 27 unhappy replies show most families are unhappy is exactly the mistake the question is warning against: it treats the loudest 30 replies as if they stood for the other 170 who never sent theirs back. A low response rate is a warning sign only because the people who bother to reply are rarely typical of everyone who was asked.
- (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) 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) An outlier from the damaged wing, not the trend. — That bird's point lies a long way from the rising trend followed by every other bird, and its low wingspan is explained by the damaged wing rather than by its age — it is an outlier caused by an unusual factor, not part of the general relationship between age and wingspan, so it should not be used when drawing the line of best fit. Saying every point must be used ignores that an outlier caused by a separate, identifiable factor can rightly be set aside. Saying it shows no correlation ignores that the other 19 points do show a clear rising trend; one outlier does not remove that. Saying it proves the line is inaccurate confuses one unusual bird with a fault in the line itself, when the line correctly describes the trend followed by the rest of the data.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 15 — Year 11 has 50 − 28 = 22 pupils in total. Of the 22 pupils who walk in total, 15 are in Year 10, so 22 − 15 = 7 Year 11 pupils walk. Subtracting that from the Year 11 total gives 22 − 7 = 15 Year 11 pupils who are driven. Choosing 28 takes the whole school's driven total, 50 − 22 = 28, and treats it as if it were Year 11's alone, without separating the year groups. Choosing 7 correctly finds how many Year 11 pupils walk but stops there, giving that figure instead of the number who are driven. Choosing 35 comes from 50 − 15, subtracting the Year 10 walkers from the whole school total rather than working within Year 11.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.