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
- (a) No, 150 pupils are a tenth of the school, chosen at random — Method: judge a sample on two things, whether every member of the population had the same chance of being chosen, and whether the sample is large enough to carry a pattern. Working: the 150 pupils were drawn from the register of every pupil in the school, so no year group or set is shut out and no pupil chooses to take part; and 150 ÷ 1,500 = 0.1, so one pupil in ten has been asked. A random sample of that share is ample for an estimate of how long the school's pupils spend on homework. Answer: no, because 150 pupils are a tenth of the school and were chosen at random. The distractors: saying a random sample always gives the exact school figure reaches the same verdict for a reason that is false, since a second random sample of 150 would give a slightly different mean; saying 150 pupils cannot be picked at random from 1,500 treats randomness as something only a whole population can have, when drawing names from the register is exactly how a random sample is taken; saying that only asking all 1,500 could show anything rejects sampling altogether, which would leave no way to study any population too large to count.
- (a) 3/10 — There are 60 − 9 = 51 right-handed pupils. Of the 24 pupils who prefer Art, 6 are left-handed, so 24 − 6 = 18 are right-handed and prefer Art. The probability that a randomly chosen pupil is right-handed and prefers Art is 18/60, which simplifies to 3/10. Giving 2/5 is 24/60 simplified — the probability of preferring Art, ignoring the right-handed condition entirely. Giving 17/20 is 51/60 simplified — the probability of being right-handed, ignoring the Art condition entirely. Giving 1/10 is 6/60 simplified — the probability of being left-handed and preferring Art, the wrong hand condition.
- (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) 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.
- (b) Treat them as outliers and check them before deciding — Method: a point lying a long way from the pattern the rest of the data make is called an outlier, and an outlier is investigated before anything is done with it, because it may be an error in the data or it may be a genuine but unusual case. Working: 48 of the 50 points lie close to the rising line of best fit, so the trend is set by those 48; the two remaining points do not follow it, so they are identified as outliers and checked — a mistake in measuring or recording would be corrected, while a genuine reading would be kept and reported. Answer: treat them as outliers and check them before deciding what to do with them. The distractors: deleting them at once assumes that every point far from the line must be an error, which throws away real data; moving the line so that it passes through them assumes a line of best fit must touch particular points, when it is drawn to follow all 50; taking them as proof that there is no correlation lets two points overturn the pattern that the other 48 agree on.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 40 minutes — Method: for grouped data, estimate the mean using the midpoint of each class — multiply each midpoint by its frequency, add the results, then divide by the total frequency. Working: the midpoints are 10, 30, 50 and 70 minutes. 10 × 5 = 50. 30 × 10 = 300. 50 × 10 = 500. 70 × 5 = 350. Σfx = 50 + 300 + 500 + 350 = 1200. Σf = 5 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 30. Estimated mean = 1200 ÷ 30 = 40 minutes. Using the upper boundary of each class instead of the midpoint — 20 × 5 = 100, 40 × 10 = 400, 60 × 10 = 600, 80 × 5 = 400 — gives a total of 1500 and an estimate of 1500 ÷ 30 = 50 minutes, too high because a boundary is not the middle of the class. Averaging the frequencies themselves, 5, 10, 10 and 5, ignores the times altogether and gives 7.5. Stopping after Σfx = 1200 without dividing by the total frequency gives a number far too large to be a time in minutes. Always find the midpoint of each class before multiplying by the frequency, and always divide by Σf at the end.
- (d) Testing destroys bulbs, so testing all leaves none to sell. — Method: testing every item in a population instead of a sample is a census — sensible only when testing does not use up or destroy what is being tested. Working: here, testing a bulb to find its lifespan destroys it, so testing all 50,000 bulbs would leave nothing left to sell — a sample lets the company estimate the typical lifespan without destroying its whole stock. Extra electricity used in testing is not the real reason a census is avoided here — it is the destruction of the product that matters. Saying a sample is always more accurate than a full census is the wrong way round: a census, if it could be carried out, gives the exact figure for the whole population — it is testing being destructive, not a lack of accuracy, that rules it out here. There is no law against testing every item a company makes — nothing in the question suggests that. When testing destroys the item being tested, sampling is necessary, not just convenient.
- (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) 5 pupils are far too few to represent 900 pupils — Method: a sample can only support a claim about a population if it is chosen fairly and if it is large enough for the pattern in it to be more than chance. Working: Priya's method of choosing is fair, because the 5 pupils were picked at random, so every pupil had the same chance of being asked. The difficulty is the size: 900 ÷ 5 = 180, so each pupil she asks stands for 180 pupils. If two of the five happen to play in the same netball team, netball takes 40% of her sample on the strength of two answers, and a second sample of 5 could easily give a different favourite sport. Answer: 5 pupils are far too few to represent 900 pupils. The distractors: saying the pupils were not chosen at random contradicts the question, which states that they were; saying the 5 may each name a different sport describes what often happens in a small sample, but disagreement is not the fault, since 5 pupils who all named the same sport would be just as weak a basis for a claim about 900; saying a sample must hold at least half of the population is an invented rule, and a properly chosen sample of a few hundred can describe a population of many thousands.
- (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.
- (b) £1,000 — Wages take up 150° out of 360°, so the amount spent on wages is 150 ÷ 360 × 2400 = £1,000. Choosing £600 uses the repairs angle, 90°, instead of the wages angle: 90 ÷ 360 × 2400 = 600. Choosing £3,600 treats the angle in degrees as if it were a percentage, 150 ÷ 100 × 2400 = 3600, instead of dividing by 360°. Choosing £800 uses the angle for the 'other costs' sector, 360 − 90 − 150 = 120°, instead of the wages sector: 120 ÷ 360 × 2400 = 800.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.