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
- (a) Negative correlation — As the age of the car increases, the points fall towards a lower value, so the value decreases as the age increases. This falling pattern is a negative correlation. A positive correlation would show the points rising together instead. No correlation would apply only if the points showed no pattern at all, and correlation is not the same as causation — strong causation is not a type of correlation.
- (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.
- (c) No, the mode here is the lowest value of the nine — Method: an average is meant to stand for the data as a whole, so test any proposed average by asking how many values it sits near. Working: the value 4 appears three times and every other count appears once, so 4 is indeed the mode. But those three hours are the quiet ones at the start of the day, and the other six counts run from 11 up to 25; putting the nine counts in order, the middle one is the fifth, which is 13. So the mode sits at the very bottom of the data, with six of the nine hours far above it. Answer: no, because the mode here is the lowest value of the nine, so it describes the quiet opening hours rather than a typical hour. The distractors: saying the mode can only be used when no value repeats reverses the definition, since a mode exists only because a value does repeat; saying the mode is the value that occurs most often is a correct definition, but being the commonest value does not make a value typical when it lies at one end of the data; saying the mode is the best average for any list of numbers ignores the fact that mean, median and mode each describe a population well in different circumstances.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) A vertical line chart (discrete numerical data) — The number of pets is discrete numerical data — whole-number values such as 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 — recorded for one variable, so a vertical line chart is the chart specified for this kind of data. A bar chart is used for categorical data, such as favourite colour, not numerical values counted like this. A pie chart shows proportions of a whole and does not show the frequency of each separate value. A scatter graph compares two different variables against each other, and only one variable, the number of pets, is recorded here.
- (d) 0 — Method: the range is the largest value minus the smallest value, whatever those two values turn out to be. Working: every value is 10, so the largest value is 10 and the smallest value is 10 as well, and the range is 10 − 10 = 0. Answer: 0 — a range of nothing says the data do not vary at all. The distractors: 10 comes from writing down the repeated value itself instead of the difference between the extremes; 20 comes from adding the largest and the smallest, 10 + 10, instead of subtracting; 40 comes from adding all four values, which gives the total sold and not a measure of spread.
- (c) 33 — Method: multiply the mean by the number of tests to get the total marks, then subtract the marks that are already known. Working: four tests with a mean of 29 give a total of 29 × 4 = 116 marks; the first three marks total 31 + 26 + 26 = 83; so the fourth mark is 116 − 83 = 33. Answer: 33, and checking, (31 + 26 + 26 + 33) ÷ 4 = 116 ÷ 4 = 29. The distractors: 116 comes from stopping at the total for all four tests; 29 comes from assuming the missing mark must be the mean itself; 4 comes from multiplying the mean by 3, the number of marks given, leaving 87 − 83 = 4.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 74 marks — Method: the two groups are different sizes, so their means cannot simply be averaged — rebuild each group's total mark, add the totals and divide by all 50 pupils. Working: Group A scored 20 × 80 = 1600 marks and Group B scored 30 × 70 = 2100 marks, giving 1600 + 2100 = 3700 marks altogether, so the overall mean is 3700 ÷ 50 = 74 marks. Answer: 74 marks, which sits nearer to 70 than to 80 because the larger group scored 70. The distractors: 75 marks comes from averaging the two group means, (80 + 70) ÷ 2, as though the groups were the same size; 76 marks comes from attaching each mean to the other group's size, (20 × 70 + 30 × 80) ÷ 50; 150 marks comes from adding the two means together and never dividing at all.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.