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
- (a) 31.5 — Method: to estimate the mean from a histogram, first turn each bar into a frequency (frequency density × class width), then use mean = Σ(frequency × midpoint) ÷ Σfrequency, with the midpoint standing in for every value in that class. Working: the four classes have widths 20, 10, 20 and 20, so their frequencies are 1 × 20 = 20, 3 × 10 = 30, 2 × 20 = 40 and 0.5 × 20 = 10, which do add to the 100 vehicles stated. Their midpoints are 10, 25, 40 and 60, so Σfx = 20 × 10 + 30 × 25 + 40 × 40 + 10 × 60 = 200 + 750 + 1600 + 600 = 3150, and the mean is 3150 ÷ 100 = 31.5. Answer: the estimated mean speed is 31.5 mph. Watch which numbers you treat as the frequencies and which as the values: using the frequency densities themselves as the frequencies, without multiplying by the class widths first, gives 1 × 10 + 3 × 25 + 2 × 40 + 0.5 × 60 = 195 spread over 1 + 3 + 2 + 0.5 = 6.5, and 195 ÷ 6.5 = 30, a mean built from the wrong 'frequencies' altogether; averaging the four midpoints on their own, (10 + 25 + 40 + 60) ÷ 4 = 33.75, ignores how many vehicles are actually in each class; and using each class's lower boundary in place of its midpoint, 20 × 0 + 30 × 20 + 40 × 30 + 10 × 50 = 2300 and 2300 ÷ 100 = 23, systematically underestimates every class by roughly half its width.
- (d) 19 kg — Method: estimate the mean of grouped data by multiplying each class's midpoint by its frequency, adding the four totals, then dividing by the total frequency. Working: the midpoints are 5, 15, 25 and 35 kg. The weighted totals are 11 × 5 = 55, 5 × 15 = 75, 5 × 25 = 125 and 9 × 35 = 315, which add to 570. Dividing by the 30 dogs gives an estimate of 570 ÷ 30 = 19 kg. Giving 5 kg reads off the midpoint of the modal class, 0 < m ≤ 10, the class with the most dogs — but the class with the most dogs is not where the mean falls, and neither is a substitute for actually calculating it. Giving 20 kg averages the four midpoints, (5 + 15 + 25 + 35) ÷ 4, treating every class as equally likely and ignoring that far more dogs are in the lightest and heaviest classes than in the middle two. Giving 570 kg stops after finding the correct weighted total and forgets the final division by the 30 dogs. Always weight each midpoint by its own frequency, and always finish by dividing by the total frequency, not the number of classes.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 60 — Method: on a histogram the frequency of a class is its frequency density × its class width, and the frequencies of all the classes add up to the total, so turn each labelled bar into a frequency and subtract their total from 250. Working: 10 ≤ age < 20 has width 20 − 10 = 10, so its frequency is 4.5 × 10 = 45; 20 ≤ age < 35 has width 35 − 20 = 15, so its frequency is 6 × 15 = 90; 50 ≤ age < 70 has width 70 − 50 = 20, so its frequency is 2.75 × 20 = 55. Those three come to 45 + 90 + 55 = 190, and the total is 250, so the missing frequency is 250 − 190 = 60. Answer: the class 35 ≤ age < 50 has 60 members. Watch what you do with the total and the three frequencies you have found: giving the total, 250, as the answer forgets that three bars have already accounted for some of the members; giving 190, the total of the other three classes, reports how many members are not in this class rather than how many are; and leaving one of the three out of the subtraction, for example 45 + 90 = 135 and 250 − 135 = 115, still owes the class at 50 ≤ age < 70 its 55 members.
- (c) Branch A waits longer, and Branch A is more consistent — Method: compare the two branches using a measure of location (the median) for who waits longer, and a measure of spread (the interquartile range) for who is more consistent — a smaller interquartile range means more consistent. Working: Branch A's median, 12 minutes, is higher than Branch B's, 9 minutes, so Branch A's customers wait longer on average. Branch A's interquartile range, 5 minutes, is smaller than Branch B's, 11 minutes, so Branch A's waiting times vary less. Answer: Branch A waits longer, and Branch A is also the more consistent of the two. Watch that each half of the comparison uses the right statistic and reads it correctly: swapping both readings gives Branch B the longer wait and the greater consistency, when neither is true; keeping the median comparison right but reading a larger interquartile range as 'more consistent' has the direction of spread backwards; and swapping only the median comparison keeps the correct branch for consistency but gives the wrong branch the longer wait.
- (c) Yes — £80 is above the boundary, £78 — Method: a value counts as an outlier when it lies more than 1.5 times the interquartile range beyond the nearer quartile; here that means checking it against upper quartile + 1.5 × interquartile range. Working: the interquartile range is 42 − 18 = 24. 1.5 × 24 = 36, and 42 + 36 = 78, so any saving above £78 is an outlier. Amara saved £80, and 80 is greater than 78. Answer: yes, Amara's saving is an outlier, because £80 is above the outlier boundary, £78. Watch how you build the boundary and what you compare it with: adding the two quartiles instead of subtracting them, 42 + 18 = 60, gives an interquartile range three times too big, and 42 + 1.5 × 60 = 42 + 90 = 132 puts the boundary so far out that £80 wrongly looks ordinary; comparing £80 with the upper quartile alone, £42, checks only that it lies in the top quarter of the data, which every value above £42 does, not that it lies unusually far beyond it; and adding the interquartile range on once instead of one and a half times, 42 + 24 = 66, uses the wrong multiplier, even though £80 still happens to clear that lower boundary too.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 23.57 °C — Method: add all seven temperatures, divide by the number of readings and round only at the end. Working: 22 + 24 + 23 + 25 + 26 + 21 + 24 = 165, and 165 ÷ 7 = 23.5714…, which rounds to 23.57 to 2 decimal places. Answer: 23.57 °C. The distractors: 24 °C comes from writing down the mode, the only temperature recorded twice, instead of the mean; 27.5 °C comes from dividing the total by 6 instead of by the 7 days recorded; 5 °C comes from working out the range, 26 − 21, which is a measure of spread and not an average.
- (d) 25% — First find the number of fruit cakes: 80 − 34 − 26 = 20. Then write this as a percentage of the total: 20 ÷ 80 × 100 = 25%. Giving 20% comes from reporting the count of fruit cakes, 20, directly as a percentage, without dividing by the total of 80 first. Giving 32.5% computes the percentage of chocolate cakes instead of fruit cakes: 26 ÷ 80 × 100 = 32.5%. Giving 42.5% computes the percentage of sponge cakes instead of fruit cakes: 34 ÷ 80 × 100 = 42.5%.
- (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.
- (c) No — median £505 at A vs £510 at B. — Branch A's seven wages in order are £480, £495, £500, £505, £510, £515 and £1,200, so the median, the 4th value, is £505. Branch B's in order are £480, £490, £500, £510, £520, £530 and £540, so the median is £510. Since £505 is lower than £510, the median wage is not higher at Branch A, so the claim is not fairly supported. Choosing 'Yes — mean £600.71 at A vs £510 at B' uses the mean: 480 + 495 + 500 + 505 + 510 + 515 + 1200 = 4205, and 4205 ÷ 7 = 600.71, a figure pulled upward by the £1,200 outlier that does not represent a typical wage. Choosing 'Yes — median £515 at A vs £510 at B' miscounts the middle position, taking the 6th wage, £515, instead of the correct 4th value, £505. Choosing 'Yes — highest wage £1,200 at A vs £540 at B' compares the highest wage at each branch rather than a measure of the typical, or average, wage.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.