Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Statistics worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions across the statistics statements at Higher tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Calculator
Answer key: Statistics worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (b) Treat them as outliers and check them before deciding — Method: a point lying a long way from the pattern the rest of the data make is called an outlier, and an outlier is investigated before anything is done with it, because it may be an error in the data or it may be a genuine but unusual case. Working: 48 of the 50 points lie close to the rising line of best fit, so the trend is set by those 48; the two remaining points do not follow it, so they are identified as outliers and checked — a mistake in measuring or recording would be corrected, while a genuine reading would be kept and reported. Answer: treat them as outliers and check them before deciding what to do with them. The distractors: deleting them at once assumes that every point far from the line must be an error, which throws away real data; moving the line so that it passes through them assumes a line of best fit must touch particular points, when it is drawn to follow all 50; taking them as proof that there is no correlation lets two points overturn the pattern that the other 48 agree on.
- (b) £1,000 — Wages take up 150° out of 360°, so the amount spent on wages is 150 ÷ 360 × 2400 = £1,000. Choosing £600 uses the repairs angle, 90°, instead of the wages angle: 90 ÷ 360 × 2400 = 600. Choosing £3,600 treats the angle in degrees as if it were a percentage, 150 ÷ 100 × 2400 = 3600, instead of dividing by 360°. Choosing £800 uses the angle for the 'other costs' sector, 360 − 90 − 150 = 120°, instead of the wages sector: 120 ÷ 360 × 2400 = 800.
- (c) 72° — The angle is 12 ÷ 60 × 360 = 72°. Choosing 150° divides football's frequency of 25 instead of badminton's 12: 25 ÷ 60 × 360 = 150. Choosing 20° finds badminton as a percentage of the members, 12 ÷ 60 × 100 = 20, rather than an angle in degrees. Choosing 90° uses 48, the total of the other three activities, as the total instead of the full 60 members: 12 ÷ 48 × 360 = 90.
- (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.
- (c) 69 — Method: multiply the mean by the number of values to find the total, then subtract the total of the known values. Working: the total of all five scores is 68 × 5 = 340. The total of the four known scores is 55 + 62 + 74 + 80 = 271. The fifth score is 340 − 271 = 69. Subtracting the other way round, 271 − 340 = −69, gives the right size answer with the wrong sign. Guessing that the missing score simply equals the mean, 68, ignores that the four known scores are not themselves centred on 68. Multiplying the mean by 4 instead of 5, 68 × 4 = 272, then 272 − 271 = 1, undercounts how many scores there are. Always multiply the mean by the TOTAL number of values before subtracting.
- (c) 75 — Method: the number in a class is the area of its bar, frequency density × class width, so work out the frequency of each class that lies at or above 10 minutes and add them. Working: the class 10 ≤ t < 25 is 15 minutes wide with a frequency density of 3.2, giving 3.2 × 15 = 48 members; the class 25 ≤ t < 55 is 30 minutes wide with a frequency density of 0.9, giving 0.9 × 30 = 27 members; the total charged is 48 + 27 = 75. Answer: 75 members pay the extra charge. The distractors: 4.1 comes from adding the two frequency densities, 3.2 + 0.9, as though each height were a count; 93 comes from including the class 0 ≤ t < 10 as well, 1.8 × 10 = 18 added to 48 and 27, which charges every member; 27 comes from using only the class 25 ≤ t < 55 and forgetting that 10 ≤ t < 25 is also at or above 10 minutes.
- (d) 25 — Method: the median is estimated at position n ÷ 2 in the cumulative frequency table, then interpolated across the class it falls in: lower boundary, plus the fraction of the way through the class, times the class width. Working: there are 80 sacks, so the median sits at position 80 ÷ 2 = 40. Before the class 20 ≤ m < 30 the cumulative frequency is 22, and by the end of it, it is 58, so this class holds the 40th sack; its frequency is 58 − 22 = 36 and its width is 30 − 20 = 10. The extra distance needed into the class is 40 − 22 = 18, and 18 ÷ 36 × 10 = 5, so the median is 20 + 5 = 25. Answer: the estimated median mass is 25 kg. Watch which numbers the interpolation uses: reading off just the lower boundary of the median class, 20, ignores how far into that class the 40th sack actually falls; treating n ÷ 2 = 40 itself as the median mass mistakes a position in the list for a mass in kilograms; and using the target position, 40, as the extra distance into the class instead of subtracting the sacks already counted changes the calculation to 20 + 40 ÷ 36 × 10. That comes to 20 + 11.1 = 31.1, overshooting the class because it never subtracts the 22 sacks already counted before it.
- (a) A vertical line chart (discrete numerical data) — The number of pets is discrete numerical data — whole-number values such as 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 — recorded for one variable, so a vertical line chart is the chart specified for this kind of data. A bar chart is used for categorical data, such as favourite colour, not numerical values counted like this. A pie chart shows proportions of a whole and does not show the frequency of each separate value. A scatter graph compares two different variables against each other, and only one variable, the number of pets, is recorded here.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 49 — Method: add the frequencies of the classes that lie wholly below 35 seconds, then use linear interpolation for the class that 35 cuts through, assuming the calls in that class are spread evenly across it. Working: below 30 seconds there are 15 + 24 = 39 calls; the value 35 lies in the class 30 ≤ t < 50, which is 20 seconds wide and holds 40 calls, and 35 is 35 − 30 = 5 seconds into it, so the estimated share is (5 ÷ 20) × 40 = 10 calls; the estimate is 39 + 10 = 49. Answer: about 49 calls met the target. The distractors: 79 comes from adding the whole of the class 30 ≤ t < 50, 39 + 40, and so counting calls of up to 50 seconds as being under 35; 39 comes from stopping at the class boundary 30 and ignoring the part class altogether; 69 comes from measuring the part of the class from 35 up to 50 instead of from 30 up to 35, giving (15 ÷ 20) × 40 = 30 and then 39 + 30.
- (b) 6 — Method: frequency density = frequency ÷ class width. Working: the class 12 ≤ h < 18 has width 18 − 12 = 6, so frequency density = 36 ÷ 6 = 6. Answer: the frequency density is 6 seedlings per cm. Watch which numbers you use: taking the lower bound, 12, as the width instead of 18 − 12 = 6 gives 36 ÷ 12 = 3; dividing the total number of seedlings, 90, rather than this class's frequency, 36, by the width gives 90 ÷ 6 = 15, a density that belongs to no single class; and multiplying instead of dividing gives 36 × 6 = 216, far too large a density for so narrow a class.
- (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.
- (c) No — 8 from one class is too small to represent the school. — Method: judge reliability by asking whether the sample is both large enough, and spread across the population, relative to what it is meant to represent. Working: 8 pupils is a tiny fraction of the school's 1,000 pupils, and all 8 come from a single class rather than a range of year groups, so the sample is both too small and too narrow to represent the whole school reliably. She is not right. Saying any sample size gives an equally reliable estimate ignores that reliability generally improves with a larger, more representative sample. Saying the method is unreliable because it was not done online is not a reason connected to sample size or representativeness at all. Saying 8 is reliable because it is more than half her class compares the sample to the wrong population — the school has 1,000 pupils, not one class. Always judge a sample's size against the population it is meant to represent, not against a smaller group within it.
- (d) Only internet users reach the website; others are excluded. — Method: a sample is biased when it systematically leaves out part of the population, or systematically over-represents another part. Working: anyone without internet access, or who does not visit the council's website, has NO chance of being included — the sample is drawn only from internet-using residents, which is not the whole town. Saying too many people might respond because the survey is free confuses bias with sample size — bias is about who CAN be reached, not how many respond. Saying people might lie describes a different problem, response honesty, not who was sampled in the first place. Saying online surveys cannot be anonymous is not a reason connected to bias at all. A sample is biased when part of the population has no chance of being included, whatever the reason for that.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.