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) 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.
- (b) 29 — There are 40 − 24 = 16 males, and 15 of them prefer cardio, so 16 − 15 = 1 male prefers weights. There are 24 females, and 10 prefer weights, so 24 − 10 = 14 females prefer cardio. Altogether, 15 + 14 = 29 people prefer cardio. Choosing 15 only counts the males who prefer cardio and forgets the females. Choosing 11 adds the two weights figures, 1 + 10 = 11, instead of the two cardio figures. Choosing 30 comes from 40 − 10, subtracting only the number of females who prefer weights from the grand total, rather than finding both cardio sub-totals separately.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 1.24 — Method: for data given as a frequency table, the mean is Σfx ÷ Σf — multiply each value by its frequency, add the results, then divide by the total frequency. Working: 0 × 6 = 0. 1 × 10 = 10. 2 × 6 = 12. 3 × 3 = 9. So Σfx = 0 + 10 + 12 + 9 = 31. The total frequency is Σf = 6 + 10 + 6 + 3 = 25. Mean = 31 ÷ 25 = 1.24 siblings. Averaging the frequency column itself, (6 + 10 + 6 + 3) ÷ 4 = 6.25, mixes up the frequencies with the values they belong to. Writing down 1, the number of siblings with the highest frequency, gives the mode, not the mean. Writing down 31 stops after finding Σfx and forgets to divide by the total frequency, 25. Always divide Σfx by Σf — never stop at the top of the fraction.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 13 — The total is 50, and the two known parts are 22 (tea) and 15 (coffee), so 50 − 22 − 15 = 13 hot chocolates. Choosing 28 comes from 50 − 22, subtracting only the tea and forgetting the coffee. Choosing 35 comes from 50 − 15, subtracting only the coffee and forgetting the tea. Choosing 37 comes from 22 + 15, which finds how many drinks were tea or coffee, not the number left over for hot chocolate.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.