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) 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.
- (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.
- (c) Height 170 cm, mass 65 kg — Method: a point on a scatter graph is written as a pair of coordinates in which the horizontal value is written first and the vertical value second, so each value is matched to the quantity named on its own axis. Working: in (170, 65) the value 170 is the horizontal coordinate and the horizontal axis shows height in centimetres, so the height is 170 cm; the value 65 is the vertical coordinate and the vertical axis shows mass in kilograms, so the mass is 65 kg. Answer: height 170 cm, mass 65 kg, each with the unit named on its own axis. The distractors: height 65 cm and mass 170 kg come from reading the pair the wrong way round, which would describe an impossible person; height 170 cm and mass 170 kg come from reading the horizontal coordinate for both quantities and never using the second number; height 235 cm and mass 105 kg come from combining the two coordinates, 170 + 65 and 170 − 65, instead of reading them separately.
- (d) 45 — Method: convert the angle into a fraction of the full circle, 360°, then apply that fraction to the total number of shoppers. Working: the card sector is 90° out of 360°, a fraction of 90 ÷ 360 = 0.25. Applying that fraction to the 180 shoppers gives 0.25 × 180 = 45 shoppers. Giving 90 states the angle itself, not a number of shoppers — the angle first has to be converted into a fraction. Using the remaining angle, 360 − 90 = 270°, and scaling that, 270 ÷ 360 × 180 = 135, finds the number who did NOT pay by card, not the number who did. Dividing 360 by 90, 360 ÷ 90 = 4, finds how many equal 90° sectors fit in the circle, a fact about the pie chart's shape, not about the shoppers at all. Always convert the angle to a fraction of 360° first, and apply that same fraction to the total number of people.
- (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) On average a plant grew 1.5 cm taller for each extra day — Method: in the equation of a line, the number multiplying x is the gradient, and a gradient states the change in y produced by an increase of 1 in x, read in the units of the two axes. Working: here x is measured in days and y in centimetres, so the gradient 1.5 carries the units centimetres per day. Testing it on the line, 5 days gives 1.5 × 5 + 4 = 11.5 cm and 6 days gives 1.5 × 6 + 4 = 13 cm, a rise of 1.5 cm for the one extra day. Answer: on average a plant grew 1.5 cm taller for each extra day of watering. The distractors: 1.5 cm as the height before any watering is the value of y when x is 0, which is the other number in the equation, 4 cm, so this swaps the gradient and the intercept; 1.5 cm as the gap between the tallest and the shortest plant reads the gradient as a range, when a range is a difference between two of the 16 plants and a gradient is a rate; 1.5 days for each extra centimetre inverts the rate, dividing days by centimetres instead of centimetres by days, and the line gives 1 cm of growth in two thirds of a day.
- (c) 72° — The angle is 12 ÷ 60 × 360 = 72°. Choosing 150° divides football's frequency of 25 instead of badminton's 12: 25 ÷ 60 × 360 = 150. Choosing 20° finds badminton as a percentage of the members, 12 ÷ 60 × 100 = 20, rather than an angle in degrees. Choosing 90° uses 48, the total of the other three activities, as the total instead of the full 60 members: 12 ÷ 48 × 360 = 90.
- (d) £15.50 — 2 × 6 = 12, and 12 + 3.50 = 15.50, so the estimated fare is £15.50. Choosing £12.00 stops after 2 × 6 = 12 and forgets to add the £3.50. Choosing £19.00 adds the distance and the constant first and then multiplies: 6 + 3.50 = 9.50, and 9.50 × 2 = 19.00, applying the ×2 to the whole sum instead of only to the distance. Choosing £13.00 multiplies only the constant term by 2 instead of the distance: 2 × 3.50 = 7, and 7 + 6 = 13.00.
- (a) x = 0 gives y = −20: a negative number sold — The y-intercept is the value the line predicts when x = 0: y = 3 × 0 − 20 = −20. A kiosk cannot sell a negative number of ice creams, so this is not a sensible estimate. The 3 in the equation is the gradient, not the intercept, so an option claiming x = 0 gives y = 3 has swapped the two numbers around — substituting x = 0 makes the 3x term equal 0, leaving −20, not 3. The danger of extrapolating to very high temperatures is a real issue with this line, but it is a different issue from the y-intercept, so it does not answer this question. And whether x = 0 could occur on a trading day is beside the point: the model still makes that prediction, and it is the prediction itself, −20, that is impossible.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.