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
- (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.
- (d) Both the mean and the range increase. — The original mean is 150 + 152 + 155 + 158 + 160 = 775, and 775 ÷ 5 = 155 cm; the original range is 160 − 150 = 10 cm. Including the new height of 170 cm gives a new total of 775 + 170 = 945, and 945 ÷ 6 = 157.5 cm, which is higher than 155 cm, and a new range of 170 − 150 = 20 cm, which is higher than 10 cm, so both the mean and the range increase. Saying the range stays the same ignores that 170 cm is a new, higher maximum than the old 160 cm. Saying the mean stays the same ignores that 170 cm is above the original mean of 155 cm, which pulls the average up. Saying both decrease is the opposite of what happens here.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) About 510 of the 600 bulbs are likely to have flowered — Method: the proportion found in a random sample is used as an estimate of the proportion in the whole population, and the conclusion is stated as an estimate, never as a fact about every member. Working: 17 of the 20 bulbs dug up had flowered, so the sample proportion is 17 ÷ 20 = 0.85, and applying that proportion to the whole planting gives 0.85 × 600 = 510 bulbs. A different random sample of 20 would very probably give a slightly different figure, so 510 is an estimate. Answer: about 510 of the 600 bulbs are likely to have flowered. The distractors: saying exactly 510 have flowered takes an estimate from a sample of 20 as a count of all 600, which no sample can deliver; saying exactly 17 of the 600 have flowered reports the sample count as though it were the population count, leaving the other 580 bulbs out of the answer altogether; saying about 20 have flowered uses the size of the sample as the estimate, when 20 is the number of bulbs she dug up rather than a number that flowered.
- (c) 20 kg ≤ mass < 30 kg — The modal class is the class with the highest frequency. Reading the plotted points, the frequencies are 6, 10, 16, 6 and 2, so the highest frequency is 16, plotted at the midpoint 25. A class of width 10 centred on 25 runs from 25 − 5 = 20 to 25 + 5 = 30, so the modal class is 20 kg ≤ mass < 30 kg. Writing '25 kg' gives only the midpoint, not the class — the modal class is an interval, not a single value. '10 kg ≤ mass < 20 kg' is the class before the peak, centred on 15, which has frequency 10, not the highest. '30 kg ≤ mass < 40 kg' is the class after the peak, centred on 35, which has frequency 6, not the highest.
- (a) 35 minutes — Chloe arrives at 09:30, so she needs the first departure time that is at or after 09:30. The bus at 09:25 has already left five minutes before she arrives, so it is missed, not caught; the next one on the timetable is 10:05. From 09:30 to 10:00 is 30 minutes, then a further 5 minutes to 10:05, so the wait is 35 minutes. Giving 40 minutes measures the gap from the missed 09:25 bus to the 10:05 bus, counting from the bus Chloe missed instead of from the time she arrived. Giving 5 minutes uses the missed 09:25 bus, working out 09:30 − 09:25 the wrong way round. Giving 45 minutes comes from treating the times as decimals — 10.05 − 9.30 = 0.75, then × 60 = 45 — instead of working in hours and minutes, where 05 minutes past the hour is not 0.05 of an hour.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) x = 0 gives y = −20: a negative number sold — The y-intercept is the value the line predicts when x = 0: y = 3 × 0 − 20 = −20. A kiosk cannot sell a negative number of ice creams, so this is not a sensible estimate. The 3 in the equation is the gradient, not the intercept, so an option claiming x = 0 gives y = 3 has swapped the two numbers around — substituting x = 0 makes the 3x term equal 0, leaving −20, not 3. The danger of extrapolating to very high temperatures is a real issue with this line, but it is a different issue from the y-intercept, so it does not answer this question. And whether x = 0 could occur on a trading day is beside the point: the model still makes that prediction, and it is the prediction itself, −20, that is impossible.
- (a) The modal size, 9, bought by more customers than any other — Method: work out both averages from the frequencies, then choose the one the shop can act on. Working: for the mean, multiply each size by the number of pairs sold at it and add: 6 × 4 + 7 × 5 + 8 × 8 + 9 × 13 + 10 × 10 = 340, and 340 ÷ 40 = 8.5, so the mean size is 8.5. The largest frequency is 13, which belongs to size 9, so the modal size is 9. The mean 8.5 is a size no customer in the record asked for, so 40 pairs of it would sit unsold, while 13 of the 40 customers wanted size 9, more than wanted any other size. Answer: the modal size, 9, bought by more customers than any other. The distractors: the mean size 8.5 does take account of all 40 pairs, but a mean of sizes is a summary figure and not a size the month's customers were buying; the mean size 8 comes from averaging the five sizes on sale, 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 = 40 and 40 ÷ 5 = 8, which ignores how many pairs were sold at each size and so treats the 4 pairs of size 6 as equal in weight to the 13 pairs of size 9; the range 4 comes from 10 − 6 and measures spread, so it says how wide a set of sizes the shop must stock, not which size to stock most of.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (a) Leeds has a higher median and a greater range than York. — In order, Leeds's temperatures are 14, 16, 18, 19 and 23, so the median is the middle value, 18, and the range is 23 − 14 = 9. York's temperatures in order are 15, 17, 17, 18 and 18, so the median is 17, and the range is 18 − 15 = 3. Since 18 is higher than 17, and 9 is greater than 3, Leeds has both the higher median and the greater range. Choosing 'Leeds has a higher median but a smaller range than York' gets the median comparison right but the range comparison backwards — Leeds's range of 9 is actually greater than York's range of 3. Choosing 'York has a higher median and a greater range than Leeds' reverses both comparisons. Choosing 'York has a higher median but a smaller range than Leeds' reverses the median comparison; York's median of 17 is lower than Leeds's 18, even though it is correct that York's range is the smaller one.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.