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.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Statistics worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (d) 24 — Method: for a sample in proportion to the population, apply the same fraction that each group makes up of the whole population to the size of the sample. Working: women make up 300 out of the 500 members, a fraction of 300 ÷ 500 = 0.6. Applying that fraction to the sample of 40 gives 0.6 × 40 = 24 women. Splitting the sample evenly, 40 ÷ 2 = 20, ignores that the club has more women than men and treats the two groups as equal in size, which they are not. Misreading the sample size as 50 instead of 40, then applying the 3:2 ratio of women to men, 3 ÷ 5 × 50 = 30, uses the right ratio but the wrong sample total. Working out the number of MEN instead of women, 200 ÷ 500 × 40 = 16, answers a different question — how many men, not how many women, belong in the sample. Always apply each group's own share of the population to the sample size, and check which group the question is actually asking about.
- (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.
- (a) Minutes a candle has burned and length remaining — As a candle burns for longer, less of it remains, so these two variables move in opposite directions as one increases — that is negative correlation. A pupil's shoe size generally increases as they get older, so age and shoe size show positive correlation, not negative, since both rise together. A football team's shirt colour is not a numerical quantity linked to how many matches it wins, so shirt colour and number of wins show no correlation at all. The number of letters in a pupil's name has no real connection to their ability in maths, so that pair also shows no correlation.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 1,400 and 1,240, so combine the samples for one estimate — Method: scale each sample up to the whole stock, then use the fact that a larger sample gives a more reliable estimate than a smaller one. Working: the first sample gives 35 ÷ 50 = 0.7 and 0.7 × 2,000 = 1,400 paperbacks; the second gives 31 ÷ 50 = 0.62 and 0.62 × 2,000 = 1,240 paperbacks. Two random samples of the same size are expected to differ a little, so neither estimate is wrong. Putting the two together gives 35 + 31 = 66 paperbacks in 100 books, and 66 ÷ 100 = 0.66 with 0.66 × 2,000 = 1,320, an estimate resting on twice as many books as either volunteer checked. Answer: 1,400 and 1,240, so combine the samples for one estimate. The distractors: keeping 1,400 because it is larger picks an estimate by its size, when both samples held 50 books and neither has a stronger claim; saying a volunteer must have miscounted assumes two random samples ought to agree exactly, which is precisely what random sampling does not promise; 1,750 and 1,550 come from 35 × 50 = 1,750 and 31 × 50 = 1,550, multiplying each count by the size of the sample instead of scaling by 2,000 ÷ 50.
- (c) The median, £160,000, as one very high price lifts the mean — Method: find both averages, then choose the one that sits closer to the bulk of the data. Working: in order the prices are 140,000, 150,000, 160,000, 170,000 and 580,000, so the median is the third of the five, £160,000. For the mean, 140,000 + 150,000 + 160,000 + 170,000 + 580,000 = 1,200,000 and 1,200,000 ÷ 5 = 240,000, so the mean is £240,000. Four of the five houses sold for £170,000 or less, so a reader told that a typical price is £240,000 would expect to pay at least £70,000 more than any of those four cost. Answer: the median, £160,000, as one very high price lifts the mean. The distractors: £580,000 is the middle value of the list as it is printed, which is the median only when the values have first been put in order; £240,000 is the mean, chosen on the ground that a median ignores three of the five prices, but a median uses all five to find which one is central and is then untroubled by how extreme the outer values are; £155,000 comes from deleting the £580,000 house and taking the mean of what is left, since 140,000 + 150,000 + 160,000 + 170,000 = 620,000 and 620,000 ÷ 4 = 155,000, but a real sale may not be thrown away merely for being large.
- (c) 90° — Method: the sectors of a pie chart share the 360° at the centre of the chart in the same proportion as the data, so a sector's angle is its share of the data multiplied by 360°. Working: a share of 25% is the fraction 25/100, which is one quarter of the whole chart, and one quarter of 360° is 360 ÷ 4 = 90°. Answer: 90°, an angle in degrees rather than a percentage. The distractors: 25° comes from sharing out 100 instead of 360, so the percentage is written straight down as a number of degrees; 14.4° comes from dividing 360 by 25 instead of multiplying 360 by the fraction 25/100, which is the division done the wrong way round; 45° comes from taking a quarter of 180° instead of a quarter of 360°, treating the pie chart as a semicircle.
- (c) 140 — Method: the mean shares the total equally between the items, so add the values and then divide by how many there are. Working: the total is 120 + 200 + 160 + 80 = 560 pages and there are 4 books, so the mean is 560 ÷ 4 = 140 pages. Answer: 140. The distractors: 560 comes from stopping at the total number of pages and never dividing by 4; 280 comes from dividing the total by 2 instead of by the 4 books; 120 comes from working out the range, 200 − 80, which measures spread instead of centre.
- (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) 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.
- (a) The median, as the one very large wage does not move it — Method: an average describes a population well when it sits close to most of the values, so compare what each average does when one value lies far from the rest. Working: in order the wages are 420, 440, 460, 480 and 1,500, so the median is the third of the five, £460. The mean uses every wage: 420 + 440 + 460 + 480 + 1,500 = 3,300 and 3,300 ÷ 5 = 660, so the mean is £660. Four of the five people earn less than £660, and the nearest of those four wages is £180 below it, so £660 describes nobody at the garage; £460 sits inside the group of four similar wages. Answer: the median, as the one very large wage does not move it, while that same wage drags the mean £200 above the median. The distractors: saying the median is always larger than the mean is an invented rule, and here the median £460 is smaller than the mean £660; saying the mean is the only average that uses all five wages is true as far as it goes, but using a value and being dragged by it are the same thing when that value is £1,500; saying £660 lies between the smallest and largest wage is true of every mean ever calculated, so it proves nothing about whether this one is typical.
- (a) 144° — Method: a pie chart shares the 360° at its centre between the categories in proportion to their frequencies, so the angle of a sector is that category's fraction of the total multiplied by 360°. Working: the sector stands for 40 pupils out of 100, which is the fraction 40/100; one pupil is worth 360 ÷ 100 = 3.6°, so 40 pupils are worth 40 × 3.6° = 144°. Answer: 144°, and the answer is an angle in degrees, not a number of pupils. The distractors: 40° comes from sharing out 100 instead of 360, so the percentage is written straight down as a number of degrees; 216° comes from working out the angle for the other 60 pupils, 60 × 3.6°, which is the rest of the pie chart; 180° comes from assuming that the tallest line must stand for half of the pupils and so take half of the chart.
- (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.
- (b) 20 — Method: each sector of a pie chart stands for a percentage of the whole set of data, so the number of pupils in a sector is that percentage of the total number of pupils. Working: the football sector is 50% and the whole pie chart stands for all 40 pupils, so the number of pupils is 50% of 40 = 0.5 × 40 = 20. Answer: 20 pupils, which is a count of pupils rather than a percentage. The distractors: 10 comes from taking the netball sector, 25% of 40, instead of the football sector; 80 comes from doubling the 40 pupils instead of halving them, which is what multiplying by 50% would do the wrong way round; 40 comes from writing down the total number of pupils in the class and never applying the percentage at all.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.