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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) Full-time workers, as most are at work at that time — Method: a sample is biased when the method of contact makes part of the population much less likely to be reached, so test each group against where its members actually are between 10 am and 2 pm on a weekday, and test each stated reason against the facts. Working: those hours are the middle of the working day, so people in full-time employment are at work and not beside a landline telephone, while people who are retired and people who are unemployed are far more likely to be at home and are reached at the usual rate; the method therefore collects far fewer replies from full-time workers than their share of the adult population the council is consulting. Answer: full-time workers, as most are at work at that time. The distractors: the reply naming retired people rests on the false claim that most retired people are at work in the daytime, when in fact a daytime call reaches them more easily than anyone; the reply naming unemployed people rests on the false claim that they are out during the day, when they too are among the easiest people to reach by a daytime call; the reply naming children rests on the false claim that children are at home at 11 am on a Tuesday, when they are at school and so are not reached by the call at all, and school-age children are in any case not the adults whose views the council is collecting.
- (c) 42 — Method: find the target cumulative frequency, 90% of the total, locate the class it falls in from the plotted points, then interpolate: lower boundary, plus the extra distance needed into the class divided by the class's frequency, times its width. Working: 90% of 320 is 0.9 × 320 = 288. The plotted points show a cumulative frequency of 280 at d = 40 and 320 at d = 50, so the class 40 ≤ d < 50 has frequency 320 − 280 = 40 and width 50 − 40 = 10, and 288 falls inside it. The extra distance needed into the class is 288 − 280 = 8, and 8 ÷ 40 × 10 = 2, so the diameter is 40 + 2 = 42. Answer: the estimated diameter is 42 mm. Watch which point and which class the interpolation actually uses: reading off d = 40, the plotted point just below the target, instead of interpolating the extra 8 ball bearings into the next 10 mm, stops one step short of the true answer; finding the diameter below which only 10% lie instead of 90% gives a target of 0.1 × 320 = 32, which falls in the class 10 ≤ d < 20 — the extra distance into that class is 32 − 30 = 2, and 2 ÷ 60 × 10 = 0.3, so this route gives 10 + 0.3 = 10.3, the bottom decile rather than the top 90%; and interpolating within the class 30 ≤ d < 40 instead of 40 ≤ d < 50, as though 288 had not yet reached a cumulative frequency of 280, treats the extra distance as 288 − 190 = 98, and 98 ÷ 90 × 10 = 10.9, giving 30 + 10.9 = 40.9, one class too early.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 648 kg — Method: to estimate a total from a sample, multiply the sample's mean by the number of items in the whole population, then check the units the question asks for. Working: 32.4 g × 20,000 = 648,000 g. Converting to kilograms, 648,000 ÷ 1,000 = 648 kg. This is only an estimate, not an exact total, because it assumes every one of the 20,000 packets has exactly the sample mean mass, when in reality individual packets vary above and below it. Giving 1.62 kg multiplies the mean by 50, the SAMPLE size, instead of by 20,000, the number of packets actually made that day — this finds the total mass of the 50 sampled packets, not the day's production. Giving 32.4 kg treats the sample mean itself, in grams, as if it already were the day's total mass in kilograms, skipping the scaling up altogether. Giving 648,000 kg correctly scales the mean up to the whole day's production but never converts the answer from grams to kilograms, leaving it 1,000 times too large. Always scale a sample's mean up by the SIZE OF THE WHOLE POPULATION, and always finish by checking the units the question asks for.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.