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) 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.
- (b) Interpolation — The salary is being estimated for a value of x between 1 and 15, which is inside the range of x-values that were actually plotted, so this is interpolation. Extrapolation would apply if the estimate used a value of x below 1 or above 15, outside the plotted range. Correlation describes the relationship between the two variables, not the reliability of an estimate, and causation describes one variable actually causing a change in the other, which is a different idea altogether — neither is the word being asked for here.
- (c) Club members probably eat differently from most people — Method: a sample is biased when the group it is drawn from differs from the population in the very thing the survey is measuring, so compare the subgroup with the population on that quantity. Working: the survey measures eating habits, and people who join a sports club take more exercise than average and are known to eat differently from the town as a whole, so their replies pull the results away from the true picture for the town however many of them are asked. Answer: club members probably eat differently from most people. The distractors: the reply about the number of members treats bias as a question of size, but a large biased sample is still biased; the reply that the members were picked at random is false, since the council picked a club rather than picking residents, and it confuses bias with non-response; the reply that everyone asked lives in the town notes something true of the members but draws the false conclusion that the sample therefore covers the town, when a sample must reflect a population and not merely be taken from inside it.
- (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.
- (a) Equal means; Class A is more consistent, smaller range. — Method: when two data sets share a measure of location, compare a measure of spread to say more about consistency. Working: both classes have the same mean mark, 14, so on average they performed equally well. Class A has the smaller range, 6, so its marks are more tightly grouped around 14 than Class B's marks, which vary by as much as 14. So Class A's marks were more consistent, even though neither class did better on average. Saying Class B did better because it has the bigger range confuses a wide spread with a high score — a big range describes variability, not performance. Saying Class A did better because it has the smaller range makes the same mistake in the other direction: the two classes are tied on the mean, so neither one 'did better'. Saying the classes cannot be compared because their means are equal misses the whole point of also comparing the range. Always compare both an average AND a spread before describing two data sets — either one alone tells only half the story.
- (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.
- (b) 4 — The difference, Bristol minus Leeds, on each day is: Monday 4 − 3 = 1, Tuesday 4 − 5 = −1, Wednesday 6 − 2 = 4, Thursday 2 − 4 = −2. The greatest amount by which Bristol exceeded Leeds is 4 hours, on Wednesday. Choosing 1 takes Monday's smaller positive difference instead of the greatest one. Choosing 2 takes the size of Thursday's difference, but that is the amount by which Leeds exceeded Bristol, the opposite direction to the one asked for. Choosing 6 takes Bristol's raw figure on Wednesday without subtracting Leeds's 2 hours first.
- (c) The mean, because every value counts towards it, so 100 pulls it from 7 up to about 20.3. — Method: work each measure out before the extra value is added and again afterwards, then compare the size of the two changes. Working: before, the six values total 42, so the mean is 42 ÷ 6 = 7, and the middle pair 6 and 8 give a median of (6 + 8) ÷ 2 = 7; after, the seven values total 142, so the mean is 142 ÷ 7 = 20.29 to 2 decimal places, while the median is now the 4th of the seven ordered values, which is 8; the mean has moved by about 13.3 and the median by 1. Answer: the mean, because every value counts towards it, so 100 pulls it from 7 up to about 20.3 — this is why the median is often preferred when a data set contains an outlier. The distractors: the reply that the mean rises by 100 adds the extra value to the mean instead of adding it to the total; the reply that the median moves to 12 takes the largest of the original values as the new middle instead of counting to the 4th of the seven values; the reply about even and odd counts quotes a rule that does not exist, since the median moved because a very large value was added, not because the count of values changed.
- (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.
- (b) No — in order the numbers are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, so the median is 5. — Method: the median is the middle value of the data in order of size, so the data must be sorted before any position is read off. Working: Noah's list 9, 3, 7, 1, 5 is not in order; sorted it becomes 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and with 5 values the middle position is the third, which now holds 5 rather than 7. Noah has read the third value of the unsorted list. Answer: no — in order the numbers are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, so the median is 5. The distractors: the reply giving 3 as the median sorts the data correctly but then reads the value in the second place instead of the third; the reply that 7 is the third number he wrote accepts a position in the unsorted list, which is exactly the mistake the question is about; the reply using the mean claims a value of 7 for it, but the mean is 25 ÷ 5 = 5, so that reasoning is false as well.
- (b) 5.5 kg — Method: with an even number of values the median is the mean of the two middle values, taken once the data are in order of size. Working: the eight masses are already in order and 8 ÷ 2 = 4, so the middle pair are the 4th and 5th values, 5 kg and 6 kg; the median is (5 + 6) ÷ 2 = 5.5 kg. Answer: 5.5 kg. The distractors: 5 kg comes from reading the 4th value and stopping there instead of averaging the middle pair; 8 kg comes from working out the range, 11 − 3, which measures spread rather than centre; 4 kg comes from writing down the modal mass, the only value that occurs twice, instead of the median.
- (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.
- (b) A line graph — Sales recorded at the end of each of the twelve months are time series data, and a line graph is the chart built to show how a value changes over time, with the points usually joined in order. A pie chart is for showing categorical data as shares of a whole, not a trend over time. A pictogram shows a frequency for separate categories using symbols, not a continuous trend. A scatter graph is for comparing two different variables against each other, not one variable over time.
- (c) 67 — Method: the mean is the total of the values divided by how many values there are, so add first and divide second. Working: the total is 50 + 83 + 68 = 201 points and three matches were played, so the mean is 201 ÷ 3 = 67 points. Answer: 67. The distractors: 68 comes from writing down the median, the middle value of 50, 68, 83, instead of the mean; 33 comes from working out the range, 83 − 50, which measures spread and not centre; 100.5 comes from dividing the total by 2 instead of by the 3 matches played.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.