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.
Answer key: Statistics worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (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.
- (d) 44 — Method: the frequency of a category in a frequency table is the number of times that category was counted, and it is read from the row for that category. Working: the rows of the table pair each colour with its count, and the row for black is paired with the count 44, so the frequency of black cars is 44. Answer: 44 cars — a frequency is a count of cars, not a colour and not a percentage. The distractors: 37 comes from reading the count paired with silver, that is from reading the wrong row of the table; 137 comes from adding every count in the table, 44 + 37 + 26 + 18 + 12, which gives the total number of cars rather than the frequency of one colour; 5 comes from counting how many different colours the table lists instead of how many cars were black.
- (d) 25% — First find the number of fruit cakes: 80 − 34 − 26 = 20. Then write this as a percentage of the total: 20 ÷ 80 × 100 = 25%. Giving 20% comes from reporting the count of fruit cakes, 20, directly as a percentage, without dividing by the total of 80 first. Giving 32.5% computes the percentage of chocolate cakes instead of fruit cakes: 26 ÷ 80 × 100 = 32.5%. Giving 42.5% computes the percentage of sponge cakes instead of fruit cakes: 34 ÷ 80 × 100 = 42.5%.
- (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.
- (b) All 2,000 members of the sports centre. — Method: in a survey, the population is the whole group the survey is trying to find out about, and the sample is the smaller group actually asked. Working: this survey wants to know what the sports centre's members think, so the population is every one of the 2,000 members — whether or not they were personally asked. Saying the population is the 100 members who were asked names the sample, not the population; the sample is drawn FROM the population, so it is smaller than it, not the same as it. Saying the population is everybody who lives in Ipswich widens the group far beyond who the survey is actually about — plenty of Ipswich residents are not members of the sports centre at all, so they are outside this survey altogether. Saying the population is the members who say they are unhappy confuses the population with a result of the survey: whether a member turns out to be happy or unhappy is something the survey finds out, not part of the definition of who is being studied. The population is always the whole group the question is about, before any sampling or any results come in.
- (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) 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.
- (c) No — 8 from one class is too small to represent the school. — Method: judge reliability by asking whether the sample is both large enough, and spread across the population, relative to what it is meant to represent. Working: 8 pupils is a tiny fraction of the school's 1,000 pupils, and all 8 come from a single class rather than a range of year groups, so the sample is both too small and too narrow to represent the whole school reliably. She is not right. Saying any sample size gives an equally reliable estimate ignores that reliability generally improves with a larger, more representative sample. Saying the method is unreliable because it was not done online is not a reason connected to sample size or representativeness at all. Saying 8 is reliable because it is more than half her class compares the sample to the wrong population — the school has 1,000 pupils, not one class. Always judge a sample's size against the population it is meant to represent, not against a smaller group within it.
- (c) 69 — Method: multiply the mean by the number of values to find the total, then subtract the total of the known values. Working: the total of all five scores is 68 × 5 = 340. The total of the four known scores is 55 + 62 + 74 + 80 = 271. The fifth score is 340 − 271 = 69. Subtracting the other way round, 271 − 340 = −69, gives the right size answer with the wrong sign. Guessing that the missing score simply equals the mean, 68, ignores that the four known scores are not themselves centred on 68. Multiplying the mean by 4 instead of 5, 68 × 4 = 272, then 272 − 271 = 1, undercounts how many scores there are. Always multiply the mean by the TOTAL number of values before subtracting.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 45 — Method: convert the angle into a fraction of the full circle, 360°, then apply that fraction to the total number of shoppers. Working: the card sector is 90° out of 360°, a fraction of 90 ÷ 360 = 0.25. Applying that fraction to the 180 shoppers gives 0.25 × 180 = 45 shoppers. Giving 90 states the angle itself, not a number of shoppers — the angle first has to be converted into a fraction. Using the remaining angle, 360 − 90 = 270°, and scaling that, 270 ÷ 360 × 180 = 135, finds the number who did NOT pay by card, not the number who did. Dividing 360 by 90, 360 ÷ 90 = 4, finds how many equal 90° sectors fit in the circle, a fact about the pie chart's shape, not about the shoppers at all. Always convert the angle to a fraction of 360° first, and apply that same fraction to the total number of people.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.