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) 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) Ethan, 10 seconds — Method: over the same distance the fastest runner is the one who takes the least time, so the smallest time in the table is found first and the name is then read from the same row. Working: the four times are 12 seconds, 15 seconds, 10 seconds and 14 seconds; in order of size these are 10, 12, 14 and 15, so the least time is 10 seconds, and the row holding 10 seconds is the row for Ethan. Answer: Ethan, 10 seconds — the time is in seconds, and a smaller time means a faster runner. The distractors: Grace with 15 seconds comes from taking the largest number in the table to mean the fastest runner, which reverses the relationship between time and speed over a fixed distance; Oliver with 12 seconds comes from writing down the first row of the table without comparing the four times; Ethan with 15 seconds comes from identifying the right runner but then reading the time from a different row of the table.
- (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) 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.
- (d) Route 1, as its times vary by 6 minutes rather than 20 — Method: work out an average and a measure of spread for each route, then decide which matters to a commuter who must arrive on time every day. Working: for Route 1, 22 + 23 + 24 + 24 + 25 + 25 + 26 + 26 + 27 + 28 = 250 and 250 ÷ 10 = 25, so the mean is 25 minutes, and the range is 28 − 22 = 6 minutes. For Route 2, 18 + 19 + 20 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 26 + 30 + 36 + 38 = 250 and 250 ÷ 10 = 25, so the mean is also 25 minutes, but the range is 38 − 18 = 20 minutes. The means give no reason to prefer either route; the spreads do, because a commuter who must never be late has to allow for the worst day, which is 28 minutes on Route 1 and 38 minutes on Route 2. Answer: Route 1, as its times vary by 6 minutes rather than 20. The distractors: saying Route 2 has the lower mean assumes that its quicker-looking early times must pull the average down, when both routes total 250 minutes over the ten days; choosing Route 2 for its fastest journey of 18 minutes judges a route by its best day, and the commuter has to survive its worst; saying either route will do uses the equal means and ignores the spread altogether, which is the one thing that separates the two routes.
- (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) 1 — Method: for data in a frequency table, find the position of the median using (n + 1) ÷ 2, then read off the value at that position from the cumulative frequencies. Working: there are 19 pupils, so the median is the 10th value. The cumulative frequencies are 7 (up to 0 pets), 10 (up to 1 pet), 14 (up to 2 pets) and 19 (up to 3 pets). The 10th value falls at the end of the '1 pet' group, so the median is 1 pet. Giving 0 pets is the mode — the category with the highest frequency, 7 — not the median. Giving 3, the highest number of pets minus the lowest, finds the range, a different statistic entirely. Giving 19 states the total number of pupils, not a number of pets at all. Find the middle POSITION first, then read off the value it belongs to — do not confuse it with the mode, the range or the total.
- (a) Priya — A line of best fit should be drawn so that the plotted points are roughly balanced above and below it. Work out the difference between the two counts for each pupil: Amir 10 − 2 = 8; Kofi 10 − 2 = 8 (10 below and 2 above); Leah 12 − 0 = 12; Priya 6 − 6 = 0. Priya's line has the smallest difference, an exact balance of 6 above and 6 below, so her line is drawn correctly. Amir's line has 10 of the 12 points above it, so it is drawn too low. Kofi's line has 10 of the 12 points below it, so it is drawn too high. Leah's line has every single point below it, so it is not a line of best fit at all.
- (b) 135 — Method: use the sample to find the PROPORTION of left-handed pupils, then apply that same proportion to the whole school population. Working: in the sample, 6 out of 40 pupils are left-handed, a proportion of 6 ÷ 40 = 0.15. Applying that proportion to the school's 900 pupils gives an estimate of 0.15 × 900 = 135 pupils. Giving 6 simply repeats the number of left-handed pupils IN THE SAMPLE, without scaling up to the whole school at all. Multiplying the population by the number of left-handed pupils in the sample without first dividing by the sample size, 900 × 6 = 5400, badly overestimates — that is more pupils than the whole school has. Dividing the population by the sample size but forgetting to multiply by the number of left-handed pupils found, 900 ÷ 40 = 22.5, finds the scale factor but stops one step short of using it. Always find the proportion in the sample first, then scale that same proportion up to the population.
- (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.
- (c) 76 marks — Method: a mean of means only works when the groups are the same size, so rebuild each class's total mark, add the totals and divide by the number of pupils altogether. Working: Class A scored 30 × 72 = 2160 marks and Class B scored 20 × 82 = 1640 marks, giving 2160 + 1640 = 3800 marks between 50 pupils, so the overall mean is 3800 ÷ 50 = 76 marks. Answer: 76 marks. The distractors: 77 marks comes from averaging the two class means, (72 + 82) ÷ 2, which ignores the different class sizes; 78 marks comes from attaching each mean to the other class's size, (30 × 82 + 20 × 72) ÷ 50; 3800 marks comes from stopping at the combined total and never dividing by 50.
- (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) The means are equal, and Class B's marks are the more consistent because its range is smaller. — Method: comparing two distributions needs two things — a measure of average and a measure of spread — and each must be put into the context of the question. Working: both classes have a mean mark of 70, so on average the two classes scored the same; the range measures spread, and Class A's range of 30 marks is three times Class B's range of 10 marks, so Class B's marks sit closely around the mean while Class A's are far more spread out. Answer: the means are equal, and Class B's marks are the more consistent because its range is smaller. The distractors: the reply crediting Class A with more consistency reverses the meaning of the range, treating a larger range as tighter data when a larger range means more spread; the reply that Class A's mean mark is higher compares the wrong pair of figures, reading the range of 30 as an average; the reply that Class B's mean mark is higher reads the spread correctly but its claim about the means is false, since both means are 70.
- (a) The modal size, 9, bought by more customers than any other — Method: work out both averages from the frequencies, then choose the one the shop can act on. Working: for the mean, multiply each size by the number of pairs sold at it and add: 6 × 4 + 7 × 5 + 8 × 8 + 9 × 13 + 10 × 10 = 340, and 340 ÷ 40 = 8.5, so the mean size is 8.5. The largest frequency is 13, which belongs to size 9, so the modal size is 9. The mean 8.5 is a size no customer in the record asked for, so 40 pairs of it would sit unsold, while 13 of the 40 customers wanted size 9, more than wanted any other size. Answer: the modal size, 9, bought by more customers than any other. The distractors: the mean size 8.5 does take account of all 40 pairs, but a mean of sizes is a summary figure and not a size the month's customers were buying; the mean size 8 comes from averaging the five sizes on sale, 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 = 40 and 40 ÷ 5 = 8, which ignores how many pairs were sold at each size and so treats the 4 pairs of size 6 as equal in weight to the 13 pairs of size 9; the range 4 comes from 10 − 6 and measures spread, so it says how wide a set of sizes the shop must stock, not which size to stock most of.
- (a) No, 150 pupils are a tenth of the school, chosen at random — Method: judge a sample on two things, whether every member of the population had the same chance of being chosen, and whether the sample is large enough to carry a pattern. Working: the 150 pupils were drawn from the register of every pupil in the school, so no year group or set is shut out and no pupil chooses to take part; and 150 ÷ 1,500 = 0.1, so one pupil in ten has been asked. A random sample of that share is ample for an estimate of how long the school's pupils spend on homework. Answer: no, because 150 pupils are a tenth of the school and were chosen at random. The distractors: saying a random sample always gives the exact school figure reaches the same verdict for a reason that is false, since a second random sample of 150 would give a slightly different mean; saying 150 pupils cannot be picked at random from 1,500 treats randomness as something only a whole population can have, when drawing names from the register is exactly how a random sample is taken; saying that only asking all 1,500 could show anything rejects sampling altogether, which would leave no way to study any population too large to count.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.