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) Full-time workers, as most are at work at that time — Method: a sample is biased when the method of contact makes part of the population much less likely to be reached, so test each group against where its members actually are between 10 am and 2 pm on a weekday, and test each stated reason against the facts. Working: those hours are the middle of the working day, so people in full-time employment are at work and not beside a landline telephone, while people who are retired and people who are unemployed are far more likely to be at home and are reached at the usual rate; the method therefore collects far fewer replies from full-time workers than their share of the adult population the council is consulting. Answer: full-time workers, as most are at work at that time. The distractors: the reply naming retired people rests on the false claim that most retired people are at work in the daytime, when in fact a daytime call reaches them more easily than anyone; the reply naming unemployed people rests on the false claim that they are out during the day, when they too are among the easiest people to reach by a daytime call; the reply naming children rests on the false claim that children are at home at 11 am on a Tuesday, when they are at school and so are not reached by the call at all, and school-age children are in any case not the adults whose views the council is collecting.
- (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) The frequency of that category — Method: a bar chart for categorical data has one bar for each category, and the vertical scale on which the bars are measured is a count. Working: a bar drawn twice as tall as another tells you that twice as many items of data fell into its category, so the height measures how many items of data belong to that one category, which is exactly what a frequency is. Answer: the height of each bar is the frequency of that category — a count of items of data. The distractors: the number of different categories comes from reading the vertical scale as though it counted the bars, which is shown along the horizontal axis instead; the total of all the data comes from treating one bar as though it stood for the whole data set rather than for one category; the mean of all the data comes from confusing a bar chart with a measure of average, which no single bar can show.
- (d) 38, and fairly confident, as 12 °C is inside the range — Method: substitute the forecast temperature into the equation of the line of best fit, then judge the prediction by where that temperature sits among the data the line was drawn from. Working: putting x = 12 into y = −3x + 74 gives −3 × 12 + 74 = 38, so the line predicts 38 hot chocolates. The recorded temperatures run from 4 °C to 18 °C, and 12 °C lies inside that interval, so this is interpolation, the safer kind of prediction. Answer: 38, and fairly confident, as 12 °C is inside the range; the owner should still expect the true figure to differ a little, since the points only lie near the line and not on it. The distractors: being completely certain treats a line of best fit as a rule that fixes each day's sales, when it describes a trend that individual days depart from; saying 12 °C is outside the range misreads the interval 4 °C to 18 °C, and the wrong warning would be attached to a sound prediction; 110 comes from −3 × 12 being taken as +36, giving 36 + 74 = 110, which loses the negative gradient and so predicts that a warm day sells more hot chocolate than a cold one.
- (b) No — in order the numbers are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, so the median is 5. — Method: the median is the middle value of the data in order of size, so the data must be sorted before any position is read off. Working: Noah's list 9, 3, 7, 1, 5 is not in order; sorted it becomes 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and with 5 values the middle position is the third, which now holds 5 rather than 7. Noah has read the third value of the unsorted list. Answer: no — in order the numbers are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, so the median is 5. The distractors: the reply giving 3 as the median sorts the data correctly but then reads the value in the second place instead of the third; the reply that 7 is the third number he wrote accepts a position in the unsorted list, which is exactly the mistake the question is about; the reply using the mean claims a value of 7 for it, but the mean is 25 ÷ 5 = 5, so that reasoning is false as well.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 40 — Method: the mean is the total divided by how many values there are, so rearranging gives total = mean × number of values. Working: the mean is 8 and there are 5 numbers, so the total is 8 × 5 = 40. Answer: 40, and checking, 40 ÷ 5 = 8, which is the mean given. The distractors: 13 comes from adding the mean and the count, 8 + 5, instead of multiplying them; 1.6 comes from dividing the mean by the count, 8 ÷ 5, which reverses the relationship; 8 comes from quoting the mean itself as the total, which is only true when there is a single number.
- (a) £16,000 — Method: first find the quarter with the highest sales figure, then subtract quarter 1's sales from it — remembering that every figure is given in THOUSANDS of pounds. Working: the highest sales figure is quarter 2, at £34,000 (34 thousand pounds). The increase from quarter 1 is £34,000 − £18,000 = £16,000. Giving £34,000 reads off the highest sales figure on its own, without subtracting quarter 1's sales — that is the highest quarter's total, not the increase. Giving £12,000 uses quarter 3's sales, 30, the SECOND-highest figure, instead of quarter 2's 34, the actual highest — 30 − 18 = 12, but quarter 3 is not the quarter with the highest sales. Giving £16 gets the subtraction right, 34 − 18 = 16, but forgets that every figure in the question is in thousands of pounds, so the increase is £16,000, not £16. Always identify the correct quarter FIRST, and always check the units the numbers are given in before writing your final answer.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (a) 22 — Method: the two subject totals overlap, because every pupil who passed both subjects has been counted once in the maths total and once again in the science total; adding the totals therefore counts those pupils twice, and the overlap has to be taken off once. Working: 18 + 12 = 30, and the 8 pupils who passed both have been counted twice in that 30, so the number who passed at least one subject is 30 − 8 = 22. Answer: 22 pupils, a count of pupils, and it is less than the 30 in the class, which leaves 8 pupils who passed neither. The distractors: 30 comes from adding the two subject totals and never removing the overlap, so it counts the 8 pupils twice; 14 comes from taking the 8 away twice, 18 + 12 − 8 − 8, removing an overlap that was only counted twice once too often; 18 comes from writing down the larger of the two subject totals on its own, which leaves out every pupil who passed science but not maths.
- (d) 1/2 — Method: a percentage is turned into a fraction by writing it over 100 and then cancelling the fraction down to its simplest form. Working: the reading sector is 50% of the pie chart, so as a fraction it is 50/100; dividing the numerator and the denominator by 50 gives 1/2. Answer: 1/2 of the pie chart — a fraction of the chart, not a number of pupils. The distractors: 1/4 comes from reading the share of the sport sector, 25%, instead of the share of the reading sector; 1/3 comes from counting the three sectors and assuming that three sectors must each take a third of the chart, which is only true when the sectors are equal; 3/4 comes from adding the reading and sport sectors together, 50% + 25% = 75%, instead of taking the reading sector on its own.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.