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) £11.00 — 1.5 × 6 = 9, and 9 + 2 = 11, so the estimated cost is £11.00. Choosing £9.00 stops after 1.5 × 6 = 9 and forgets to add the £2. Choosing £12.00 adds the mass and the constant first and then multiplies: 6 + 2 = 8, and 8 × 1.5 = 12.00. Choosing £13.50 swaps the gradient and the intercept, using y = 2x + 1.5 instead: 2 × 6 = 12, and 12 + 1.5 = 13.50.
- (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.
- (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) 19 kg — Method: estimate the mean of grouped data by multiplying each class's midpoint by its frequency, adding the four totals, then dividing by the total frequency. Working: the midpoints are 5, 15, 25 and 35 kg. The weighted totals are 11 × 5 = 55, 5 × 15 = 75, 5 × 25 = 125 and 9 × 35 = 315, which add to 570. Dividing by the 30 dogs gives an estimate of 570 ÷ 30 = 19 kg. Giving 5 kg reads off the midpoint of the modal class, 0 < m ≤ 10, the class with the most dogs — but the class with the most dogs is not where the mean falls, and neither is a substitute for actually calculating it. Giving 20 kg averages the four midpoints, (5 + 15 + 25 + 35) ÷ 4, treating every class as equally likely and ignoring that far more dogs are in the lightest and heaviest classes than in the middle two. Giving 570 kg stops after finding the correct weighted total and forgets the final division by the 30 dogs. Always weight each midpoint by its own frequency, and always finish by dividing by the total frequency, not the number of classes.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.