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
- (d) 30 — Method: on a dual bar chart each bar is a separate frequency, so a total for the whole class is found by combining the two frequencies the bars show. Working: the bars show 14 boys and 16 girls, and 14 + 16 = 30. Answer: 30 pupils, a count of pupils in the class. The distractors: 32 comes from doubling the taller bar, 16 + 16, as though the two bars were equal; 28 comes from doubling the shorter bar, 14 + 14, in the same way; 2 comes from finding the difference between the two bars, 16 − 14, which answers how many more girls there are rather than how many pupils there are.
- (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.
- (a) 12 mm — Method: the range is the highest value minus the lowest value. Working: the highest rainfall is 15 mm and the lowest is 3 mm, so the range is 15 − 3 = 12 mm. Giving 15 mm alone states the highest value, not the range. Giving 3 mm alone states the lowest value, not the range. Sorting the six values, 3, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 15, and averaging the middle two, (9 + 11) ÷ 2 = 10 mm, finds the median, a completely different statistic. The range always needs BOTH the highest and the lowest value — never just one of them.
- (a) 23 minutes — Method: the equation of a line of best fit converts a value of x into a predicted value of y, so substitute the known number of pages for x and evaluate. Working: x is the number of pages, so put x = 10 into y = 2x + 3. Multiplication is carried out before addition, so 2 × 10 + 3 = 23. Answer: 23 minutes, and it is a prediction of the trend rather than a promise about any one chapter. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from working out 2 × 10 and stopping there, leaving out the 3 that the line adds; 26 minutes comes from reading the equation as y = 2(x + 3), adding first and then doubling, so 2 × 13 = 26; 13 minutes comes from adding 10 and 3 and never using the gradient at all, which treats the 2 as though it were not there.
- (a) 5 pupils are far too few to represent 900 pupils — Method: a sample can only support a claim about a population if it is chosen fairly and if it is large enough for the pattern in it to be more than chance. Working: Priya's method of choosing is fair, because the 5 pupils were picked at random, so every pupil had the same chance of being asked. The difficulty is the size: 900 ÷ 5 = 180, so each pupil she asks stands for 180 pupils. If two of the five happen to play in the same netball team, netball takes 40% of her sample on the strength of two answers, and a second sample of 5 could easily give a different favourite sport. Answer: 5 pupils are far too few to represent 900 pupils. The distractors: saying the pupils were not chosen at random contradicts the question, which states that they were; saying the 5 may each name a different sport describes what often happens in a small sample, but disagreement is not the fault, since 5 pupils who all named the same sport would be just as weak a basis for a claim about 900; saying a sample must hold at least half of the population is an invented rule, and a properly chosen sample of a few hundred can describe a population of many thousands.
- (d) 1100 — Method: to combine two samples of different sizes, add the faulty counts together and add the sample sizes together before scaling up, rather than treating the two samples separately. Working: the combined sample found 34 + 21 = 55 scratched cases out of 100 + 50 = 150 cases checked, a proportion of 55 ÷ 150. Applying that proportion to the week's production of 3,000 gives an estimate of 55 ÷ 150 × 3000 = 1100 scratched cases. Averaging the two shifts' proportions instead of combining their totals, (34 ÷ 100 + 21 ÷ 50) ÷ 2 = 0.38, gives 0.38 × 3000 = 1140 — this treats the two samples as equally weighted even though Shift A checked twice as many cases as Shift B. Using only Shift A's sample, 34 ÷ 100 × 3000 = 1020, ignores Shift B's cases completely. Using only Shift B's sample, 21 ÷ 50 × 3000 = 1260, ignores Shift A's cases completely. When two samples are different sizes, combine their totals before finding the proportion — do not average the two proportions, and do not use only one shift's sample.
- (b) 20 — Method: each sector of a pie chart stands for a percentage of the whole set of data, so the number of pupils in a sector is that percentage of the total number of pupils. Working: the football sector is 50% and the whole pie chart stands for all 40 pupils, so the number of pupils is 50% of 40 = 0.5 × 40 = 20. Answer: 20 pupils, which is a count of pupils rather than a percentage. The distractors: 10 comes from taking the netball sector, 25% of 40, instead of the football sector; 80 comes from doubling the 40 pupils instead of halving them, which is what multiplying by 50% would do the wrong way round; 40 comes from writing down the total number of pupils in the class and never applying the percentage at all.
- (a) 62.5 — Method: a mean cannot be averaged with a new value — rebuild the total, add the new value to it, then divide by the new count. Working: three numbers with a mean of 50 have a total of 50 × 3 = 150; adding 100 makes the total 150 + 100 = 250; there are now 4 numbers, so the new mean is 250 ÷ 4 = 62.5. Answer: 62.5. The distractors: 75 comes from averaging the old mean with the new value, (50 + 100) ÷ 2, which ignores that three numbers pull against one; 50 comes from assuming an extra value leaves the mean unchanged; 37.5 comes from dividing the old total of 150 by the new count of 4, adding the new value to the count but not to the total.
- (d) It asks two things at once and invites agreement — Method: a survey question is faulty when a reply to it cannot be read as evidence about one single thing, so check how many claims it contains and whether its wording pushes the reader one way. Working: the question joins two separate claims, that learning matters and that more homework should be set, so a reply of yes could mean either of them or both and cannot be counted as evidence about homework; the opening words “Do you agree” also invite agreement instead of leaving the reader free to say no. Answer: it asks two things at once and invites agreement. The distractors: the reply calling it too short mistakes length for clarity, when the fault is that too much has been packed in rather than too little; the reply about long words is false, since every word in the question is an everyday one and the fault lies in what is being asked rather than in the vocabulary used to ask it; the reply that the question is fine takes a yes or no answer as proof that the question works, which is exactly what a double question defeats.
- (c) 10 — Method: work out the mean that can be found straight away, then use total = mean × number of values on the group of three to find the missing number. Working: the mean of 15 and 25 is (15 + 25) ÷ 2 = 40 ÷ 2 = 20, so the group of three must also have a mean of 20; three numbers with a mean of 20 have a total of 20 × 3 = 60, and 20 + 30 = 50 of that total is already accounted for, so x = 60 − 50 = 10. Answer: 10, and checking, (10 + 20 + 30) ÷ 3 = 20. The distractors: 20 comes from working out the mean the two groups share and writing that down as x; −10 comes from dividing the group of three by 2 instead of by 3, which gives x + 50 = 40; 70 comes from reading the total 15 + 25 = 40 as the mean of the pair, which sets the target total at 120 and leaves x = 70.
- (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) 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.
- (c) Thursday — Method: on a bar chart the tallest bar belongs to the greatest value, so compare the five temperatures and then read off the day that the greatest one belongs to. Working: the temperatures are 20 °C, 22 °C, 18 °C, 25 °C and 23 °C; in order of size these are 18, 20, 22, 23 and 25, so the greatest temperature is 25 °C, and the day recorded with 25 °C is Thursday. Answer: Thursday — the answer is a day, not a temperature. The distractors: Friday comes from stopping at the final temperature listed instead of comparing all five; Wednesday comes from picking out the shortest bar, 18 °C, and so answering for the lowest temperature rather than the highest; Monday comes from writing down the first day in the chart without comparing any of the temperatures at all.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.