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) 22 kg — Method: multiply the mean by the number of parcels to rebuild the total mass, then subtract the masses that are known. Working: four parcels with a mean mass of 17 kg have a total mass of 17 × 4 = 68 kg; the three known parcels total 12 + 16 + 18 = 46 kg; so the fourth parcel has mass 68 − 46 = 22 kg. Answer: 22 kg. The distractors: 68 kg comes from stopping at the total mass of all four parcels; 17 kg comes from assuming the missing parcel must have the mean mass; 5 kg comes from multiplying the mean by 3, the number of parcels whose mass is given, leaving 51 − 46 = 5.
- (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.
- (c) 16 kg — Method: sort the seven weights before finding the middle value. Working: in order, the weights are 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20 and 50 kg. There are 7 values, so the median is the 4th one: 16 kg. Reading off the 4th weight in the order the vet recorded them, 10 kg, skips the sorting step and is not the median. Working out the mean, 140 ÷ 7 = 20 kg, finds a different average altogether. Working out the range, 50 − 10 = 40 kg, finds the spread, not the middle value. Always sort your data first — the median lives in the ordered list, not the collection order.
- (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) No correlation — Shoe size has no real relationship with spelling ability, and the points here are scattered with no rising or falling trend, so this is no correlation. A positive correlation would show the points rising together, and a negative correlation would show them falling as one increases; neither pattern is present here. Strong correlation is not correct either, since strength only applies once a positive or negative trend exists, and there isn't one.
- (c) 28 — Method: multiply the number of whole symbols by the value of one symbol, then add the value of any half symbol shown. Working: 3 whole symbols represent 3 × 8 = 24 cars. The half symbol represents 4 cars. Total cars sold in March = 24 + 4 = 28. Leaving out the half symbol, 3 × 8 = 24, undercounts by exactly the value of that half symbol. Treating the half symbol as if it were a full symbol, 4 × 8 = 32, overcounts because it doubles the value the half symbol is worth. Giving 3.5 reports the number of symbols shown, not the number of cars they represent — the key still needs to be applied. Always apply the key to every symbol shown, including a half symbol, rather than reading off the symbol count itself.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) Yes — with an estimate of 320, above the 250 limit. — Method: scale the sample proportion up to the whole batch to get an estimate, then compare that estimate with the 250 limit to reach a decision. Working: in the sample, 4 out of 50 boards are faulty, a proportion of 4 ÷ 50 = 0.08. Applying that proportion to the batch of 4,000 gives an estimate of 0.08 × 4000 = 320 faulty boards. Since 320 is more than 250, the factory should scrap the batch. Inverting the proportion, 50 ÷ 4 = 12.5, and treating that as a percentage of the batch, 12.5% × 4000 = 500, still gives 'yes' but from the wrong fraction, so it overstates the estimate. Comparing the raw number of faulty boards found in the sample, 4, directly with the 250 limit skips the scaling up to the batch altogether, and 4 is nowhere near 250, so that route wrongly says 'no'. Dividing the batch by the sample size, 4000 ÷ 50 = 80, finds how many samples of 50 fit into the batch but stops before multiplying by the 4 faulty boards found, so it also wrongly says 'no'. Always find the proportion in the sample first, scale it up to the whole batch, and only then compare the estimate with the limit given.
- (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.
- (d) 20 — 0.4x + 1 = 9, so 0.4x = 9 − 1 = 8, and 8 ÷ 0.4 = 20, so 20 sessions are needed. Choosing 23 divides 9 by 0.4 without first subtracting the 1: 9 ÷ 0.4 = 22.5, rounded up to 23. Choosing 25 subtracts the wrong way, adding the 1 instead of taking it away: 9 + 1 = 10, and 10 ÷ 0.4 = 25. Choosing 2 misplaces the decimal point in the gradient, dividing by 4 instead of by 0.4: 8 ÷ 4 = 2.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 7 — Method: the median is the middle value when the data are written in order of size, and with an odd number of values there is exactly one middle value. Working: the numbers are already in order, 2, 4, 7, 12, 26, and there are 5 of them, so the middle position is the third and the value sitting there is 7. Answer: 7, with two values below it and two above it. The distractors: 10.2 comes from working out the mean, 51 ÷ 5, instead of the median; 14 comes from taking the value halfway between the smallest and the largest, (2 + 26) ÷ 2; 24 comes from working out the range, 26 − 2, which measures spread rather than centre.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.