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 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) 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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) It is not representative, as she picked her own friends — Method: judge a sample by asking whether the pupils in it were chosen in a way that gives the whole school a fair chance of being heard. Working: Isla's friends are a group she formed herself, and friends tend to share tastes, so their favourite programme is likely to match hers rather than the school's, and pupils in other year groups and other friendship groups had no chance at all of being asked; the fault lies in how the pupils were selected, not in how many of them there were. Answer: it is not representative, as she picked her own friends. The distractors: the reply blaming the size claims the pupils were picked at random, which is false here, and it is the common mistake of thinking a biased sample can be cured by making it bigger; the reply calling the sample too large is false in the other direction, as a survey is never spoilt by collecting more replies; the reply that the sample is fine treats attending the school as enough, which would make any group of pupils in the building a fair sample.
- (c) No — 8 from one class is too small to represent the school. — Method: judge reliability by asking whether the sample is both large enough, and spread across the population, relative to what it is meant to represent. Working: 8 pupils is a tiny fraction of the school's 1,000 pupils, and all 8 come from a single class rather than a range of year groups, so the sample is both too small and too narrow to represent the whole school reliably. She is not right. Saying any sample size gives an equally reliable estimate ignores that reliability generally improves with a larger, more representative sample. Saying the method is unreliable because it was not done online is not a reason connected to sample size or representativeness at all. Saying 8 is reliable because it is more than half her class compares the sample to the wrong population — the school has 1,000 pupils, not one class. Always judge a sample's size against the population it is meant to represent, not against a smaller group within it.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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) 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) No, the range uses only the fastest and slowest time — Method: check what the range is built from, then look at what it leaves out. Working: both teams have a fastest time of 20 seconds and a slowest of 40 seconds, so both ranges are 40 − 20 = 20 seconds and Tomás has that part right. But the range is calculated from those two values alone. Six of Team A's seven times lie between 20 and 25 seconds, with a single time far out at 40; Team B is the other way round, with six of its seven times at 30 seconds or more and a single time far out at 20. So Team A bunches at the fast end and Team B at the slow end. The two patterns are quite different, and the range cannot see the difference because the five middle times never enter the calculation. Answer: no, because the range uses only the fastest and slowest time. The distractors: comparing the means answers a different question, since a mean measures position rather than spread, and two sets with the same spread can have different means; saying that equal ranges mean equal spread is the very assumption that fails here; saying that seven times each forces the spreads to match confuses the size of a data set with how its values are arranged inside it.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.