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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) On average a plant grew 1.5 cm taller for each extra day — Method: in the equation of a line, the number multiplying x is the gradient, and a gradient states the change in y produced by an increase of 1 in x, read in the units of the two axes. Working: here x is measured in days and y in centimetres, so the gradient 1.5 carries the units centimetres per day. Testing it on the line, 5 days gives 1.5 × 5 + 4 = 11.5 cm and 6 days gives 1.5 × 6 + 4 = 13 cm, a rise of 1.5 cm for the one extra day. Answer: on average a plant grew 1.5 cm taller for each extra day of watering. The distractors: 1.5 cm as the height before any watering is the value of y when x is 0, which is the other number in the equation, 4 cm, so this swaps the gradient and the intercept; 1.5 cm as the gap between the tallest and the shortest plant reads the gradient as a range, when a range is a difference between two of the 16 plants and a gradient is a rate; 1.5 days for each extra centimetre inverts the rate, dividing days by centimetres instead of centimetres by days, and the line gives 1 cm of growth in two thirds of a day.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 26 — Method: a line of best fit lets one quantity be predicted from the other, so the score is substituted into the equation of the line and the resulting inequality is solved for the number of hours. Working: a score of at least 80 means 2.5x + 15 ≥ 80; taking 15 from both sides gives 2.5x ≥ 65, and dividing both sides by 2.5 gives x ≥ 26, so the least whole number of hours is 26. Checking, 2.5 × 26 + 15 = 80, which does reach the target. Answer: 26 hours — and this is only an estimate, because a line of best fit predicts a trend rather than an individual result, and a prediction made outside the range of hours the pupils actually revised for would be an extrapolation and less reliable still. The distractors: 27 comes from reaching 26 and then rounding up again, although 26 hours already gives a score of exactly 80; 32 comes from 80 ÷ 2.5, which ignores the 15 in the equation of the line; 38 comes from (80 + 15) ÷ 2.5, that is from adding the 15 instead of subtracting it when rearranging.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (d) 4, 3, 2, 6 — Method: frequency density = frequency ÷ class width for each class in turn; do not assume the classes are all the same width. Working: the four classes have widths 10 − 0 = 10, 30 − 10 = 20, 45 − 30 = 15 and 50 − 45 = 5. Dividing each frequency by its own width gives 40 ÷ 10 = 4, 60 ÷ 20 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 30 ÷ 5 = 6. Answer: the frequency densities, in order, are 4, 3, 2 and 6. Watch the width of each class separately: treating the last class as if it were also 10 units wide, like the first, gives 30 ÷ 10 = 3 instead of 30 ÷ 5 = 6 — the classes here are deliberately unequal, so no width can be borrowed from another class; dividing the width by the frequency instead of the frequency by the width for the third class gives 15 ÷ 30 = 0.5 in place of 2, the formula the wrong way round; and reading the frequency column straight off the table, 40, 60, 30, 30, skips the division by width altogether and reports how many fish are in each class rather than how densely packed each bar is.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 40 minutes — Method: for grouped data, estimate the mean using the midpoint of each class — multiply each midpoint by its frequency, add the results, then divide by the total frequency. Working: the midpoints are 10, 30, 50 and 70 minutes. 10 × 5 = 50. 30 × 10 = 300. 50 × 10 = 500. 70 × 5 = 350. Σfx = 50 + 300 + 500 + 350 = 1200. Σf = 5 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 30. Estimated mean = 1200 ÷ 30 = 40 minutes. Using the upper boundary of each class instead of the midpoint — 20 × 5 = 100, 40 × 10 = 400, 60 × 10 = 600, 80 × 5 = 400 — gives a total of 1500 and an estimate of 1500 ÷ 30 = 50 minutes, too high because a boundary is not the middle of the class. Averaging the frequencies themselves, 5, 10, 10 and 5, ignores the times altogether and gives 7.5. Stopping after Σfx = 1200 without dividing by the total frequency gives a number far too large to be a time in minutes. Always find the midpoint of each class before multiplying by the frequency, and always divide by Σf at the end.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.