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) 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.
- (a) Equal means; Class A is more consistent, smaller range. — Method: when two data sets share a measure of location, compare a measure of spread to say more about consistency. Working: both classes have the same mean mark, 14, so on average they performed equally well. Class A has the smaller range, 6, so its marks are more tightly grouped around 14 than Class B's marks, which vary by as much as 14. So Class A's marks were more consistent, even though neither class did better on average. Saying Class B did better because it has the bigger range confuses a wide spread with a high score — a big range describes variability, not performance. Saying Class A did better because it has the smaller range makes the same mistake in the other direction: the two classes are tied on the mean, so neither one 'did better'. Saying the classes cannot be compared because their means are equal misses the whole point of also comparing the range. Always compare both an average AND a spread before describing two data sets — either one alone tells only half the story.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) Because every pupil has an equal chance of being picked — Method: whether a sample represents its population is decided by the selection method, not by the size of the sample, so ask whether the method gives every member of the population the same chance of being chosen. Working: the names are drawn at random from a list of all 10,000 pupils, so each pupil has the same chance, 500 out of 10,000, of being drawn, and no group of pupils is more likely to appear than any other; that is what keeps bias out of the sample. Answer: because every pupil has an equal chance of being picked. The distractors: the reply about 5% treats the sampling fraction as the test of fairness, but a badly chosen 5% is still biased and a well chosen 1% is not; the reply about 500 being large enough makes size the test instead, which is the same mistake in another form, since a large sample drawn from one school would still misrepresent the city; the reply about the most willing pupils describes self-selection, which hands the choice of who is in the sample to the pupils who feel most strongly about the question.
- (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) Drawing 60 names at random from a list of all 1200 pupils — Method: a sample is random when every member of the population has the same chance of being chosen and nobody, including the pupils themselves, can influence who ends up in it; test each method against that. Working: drawing names from a list of all 1200 pupils gives each pupil the same chance, 60 out of 1200, whatever their year group, class or opinion, so the method is random. Answer: drawing 60 names at random from a list of all 1200 pupils. The distractors: asking the pupils who volunteer is self-selection, and the pupils with the strongest views volunteer first, so they decide the sample; asking the pupils nearest the door is convenience sampling, which reaches only those who happen to be in one place at one time; asking two Year 10 classes samples a cluster, so every pupil in the other year groups has no chance of being chosen at all.
- (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.
- (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.