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) 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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (c) No — median £505 at A vs £510 at B. — Branch A's seven wages in order are £480, £495, £500, £505, £510, £515 and £1,200, so the median, the 4th value, is £505. Branch B's in order are £480, £490, £500, £510, £520, £530 and £540, so the median is £510. Since £505 is lower than £510, the median wage is not higher at Branch A, so the claim is not fairly supported. Choosing 'Yes — mean £600.71 at A vs £510 at B' uses the mean: 480 + 495 + 500 + 505 + 510 + 515 + 1200 = 4205, and 4205 ÷ 7 = 600.71, a figure pulled upward by the £1,200 outlier that does not represent a typical wage. Choosing 'Yes — median £515 at A vs £510 at B' miscounts the middle position, taking the 6th wage, £515, instead of the correct 4th value, £505. Choosing 'Yes — highest wage £1,200 at A vs £540 at B' compares the highest wage at each branch rather than a measure of the typical, or average, wage.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) The frequency of that category — Method: a bar chart for categorical data has one bar for each category, and the vertical scale on which the bars are measured is a count. Working: a bar drawn twice as tall as another tells you that twice as many items of data fell into its category, so the height measures how many items of data belong to that one category, which is exactly what a frequency is. Answer: the height of each bar is the frequency of that category — a count of items of data. The distractors: the number of different categories comes from reading the vertical scale as though it counted the bars, which is shown along the horizontal axis instead; the total of all the data comes from treating one bar as though it stood for the whole data set rather than for one category; the mean of all the data comes from confusing a bar chart with a measure of average, which no single bar can show.
- (d) 23.57 °C — Method: add all seven temperatures, divide by the number of readings and round only at the end. Working: 22 + 24 + 23 + 25 + 26 + 21 + 24 = 165, and 165 ÷ 7 = 23.5714…, which rounds to 23.57 to 2 decimal places. Answer: 23.57 °C. The distractors: 24 °C comes from writing down the mode, the only temperature recorded twice, instead of the mean; 27.5 °C comes from dividing the total by 6 instead of by the 7 days recorded; 5 °C comes from working out the range, 26 − 21, which is a measure of spread and not an average.
- (a) 1.24 — Method: for data given as a frequency table, the mean is Σfx ÷ Σf — multiply each value by its frequency, add the results, then divide by the total frequency. Working: 0 × 6 = 0. 1 × 10 = 10. 2 × 6 = 12. 3 × 3 = 9. So Σfx = 0 + 10 + 12 + 9 = 31. The total frequency is Σf = 6 + 10 + 6 + 3 = 25. Mean = 31 ÷ 25 = 1.24 siblings. Averaging the frequency column itself, (6 + 10 + 6 + 3) ÷ 4 = 6.25, mixes up the frequencies with the values they belong to. Writing down 1, the number of siblings with the highest frequency, gives the mode, not the mean. Writing down 31 stops after finding Σfx and forgets to divide by the total frequency, 25. Always divide Σfx by Σf — never stop at the top of the fraction.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.