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) 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.
- (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) 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) The class with times from 10 up to 20 — Method: to find the median class from a histogram, first turn each bar's frequency density into a frequency using density × class width, build up the cumulative frequency, and find the first class whose cumulative frequency reaches or passes n ÷ 2. Working: the four classes have widths 10, 10, 20 and 20, so their frequencies are 5 × 10 = 50, 2 × 10 = 20, 1.5 × 20 = 30 and 1 × 20 = 20, which add to the 120 visitors stated. The median sits at position 120 ÷ 2 = 60. The cumulative frequency is 50 after the first class and 50 + 20 = 70 after the second, so the 60th visitor is reached during the second class. Answer: the median lies in the class 10 ≤ t < 20. Watch which class each shortcut lands on: the tallest bar belongs to the first class, with the highest frequency density, 5 — but the tallest bar shows where visitors are packed most densely, not where the middle visitor falls, and picking it lands one class too early, at 0 ≤ t < 10; taking half of the total TIME span instead of half of the total NUMBER of visitors, 60 minutes ÷ 2 = 30 minutes, lands in the class 20 ≤ t < 40, confusing a value on the horizontal axis with a position in the data; and using the full 120 visitors as the target position, rather than 120 ÷ 2 = 60, reaches all the way to the last class, 40 ≤ t < 60, treating the whole data set's size as though it were the position of a single middle value.
- (c) Route 2, because its interquartile range is smaller — Method: for a journey where turning up on time matters, what matters is not the typical (median) time but how predictable it is — a smaller interquartile range means the middle half of journeys cluster closer together. Working: Route 1's median, 34 minutes, is in fact lower than Route 2's, 41 minutes, so Route 1 is faster on average; but Route 1's interquartile range, 22 minutes, is far larger than Route 2's, 6 minutes, so Route 1's times are much less predictable. Answer: Priya should choose Route 2, because its interquartile range is smaller, even though it is slower on average. Watch which statistic answers the question actually asked: Route 1 does not have the smaller interquartile range, Route 2 does, so picking Route 1 for that reason misreads the table; Route 1's median genuinely is the lower one, but a lower median answers 'which is faster', not 'which is more reliable'; and Route 2's median is not the lower one, so that claim about Route 2 is simply false.
- (d) £15.50 — 2 × 6 = 12, and 12 + 3.50 = 15.50, so the estimated fare is £15.50. Choosing £12.00 stops after 2 × 6 = 12 and forgets to add the £3.50. Choosing £19.00 adds the distance and the constant first and then multiplies: 6 + 3.50 = 9.50, and 9.50 × 2 = 19.00, applying the ×2 to the whole sum instead of only to the distance. Choosing £13.00 multiplies only the constant term by 2 instead of the distance: 2 × 3.50 = 7, and 7 + 6 = 13.00.
- (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.
- (d) 20 — 0.4x + 1 = 9, so 0.4x = 9 − 1 = 8, and 8 ÷ 0.4 = 20, so 20 sessions are needed. Choosing 23 divides 9 by 0.4 without first subtracting the 1: 9 ÷ 0.4 = 22.5, rounded up to 23. Choosing 25 subtracts the wrong way, adding the 1 instead of taking it away: 9 + 1 = 10, and 10 ÷ 0.4 = 25. Choosing 2 misplaces the decimal point in the gradient, dividing by 4 instead of by 0.4: 8 ÷ 4 = 2.
- (c) 76 — Method: the frequency of each class is the area of its bar, frequency density × class width, so work out all three frequencies and add them. Working: the widths are 5, 10 and 25 kg, so the frequencies are 4 × 5 = 20, 2.6 × 10 = 26 and 1.2 × 25 = 30; the total is 20 + 26 + 30 = 76. Answer: 76 dogs. The distractors: 7.8 comes from adding the three frequency densities, 4 + 2.6 + 1.2, treating each height as though it were a count; 107 comes from using each upper class boundary as the width, giving 4 × 5, 2.6 × 15 and 1.2 × 40; 39 comes from using the first class width, 5, for every bar, which ignores the unequal intervals and gives 20 + 13 + 6.
- (c) 46 — Method: the cumulative frequency table gives the number of runners below each time; to find the number at or above a time, subtract that cumulative frequency from the total. Working: the cumulative frequency for t < 40 is 74, so 120 runners in total take away the 74 who finished in under 40 minutes: 120 − 74 = 46. Answer: 46 runners took 40 minutes or longer. Watch which boundary and which subtraction you use: reading off t < 50 instead of t < 40 and subtracting, 120 − 110 = 10, answers a different question, '50 minutes or longer'; giving 74 itself as the answer reports how many finished below 40 minutes, the opposite of what was asked; and subtracting the two nearby cumulative frequencies, 110 − 74 = 36, finds how many took between 40 and 50 minutes, not everyone from 40 minutes upward.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (c) 156 cm — Method: to combine two groups' means, multiply each group's mean by its own number of pupils, add the two totals together, then divide by the total number of pupils in both groups. Working: 20 × 150 = 3,000 cm for the boys and 10 × 168 = 1,680 cm for the girls, giving a combined total of 3,000 + 1,680 = 4,680 cm. Dividing by all 30 pupils gives 4,680 ÷ 30 = 156 cm. Giving 159 cm averages the two means, (150 + 168) ÷ 2, treating the two groups as if they had the same number of pupils, when there are twice as many boys as girls. Giving 4,680 cm finds the correct combined total height but stops there, forgetting the final division by the 30 pupils. Giving 234 cm divides the combined total by 20, the number of boys only, forgetting that the total also includes the 10 girls. Always weight each mean by its own group size, and always divide by the TOTAL number of pupils in both groups combined.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.