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
- (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.
- (c) 90 — Method: the height of a bar is its frequency density, so twice as tall means twice the frequency density — not twice the frequency, because the two classes have different widths. Then frequency = frequency density × class width. Working: the first bar has frequency density 3 per cm, so the second has frequency density 2 × 3 = 6 per cm; the class 30 ≤ x < 45 is 45 − 30 = 15 cm wide, so its frequency is 6 × 15 = 90. Answer: 90 rods. The distractors: 120 comes from doubling the first bar's frequency instead of its height — the first class holds 3 × 20 = 60 rods, and doubling that ignores the fact that the second class is narrower; 45 comes from using the first bar's frequency density, 3, for the second bar, 3 × 15, and so never using the information that it is twice as tall; 6 comes from stopping at the frequency density of the taller bar and quoting a height as though it were a count.
- (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) No, the mode here is the lowest value of the nine — Method: an average is meant to stand for the data as a whole, so test any proposed average by asking how many values it sits near. Working: the value 4 appears three times and every other count appears once, so 4 is indeed the mode. But those three hours are the quiet ones at the start of the day, and the other six counts run from 11 up to 25; putting the nine counts in order, the middle one is the fifth, which is 13. So the mode sits at the very bottom of the data, with six of the nine hours far above it. Answer: no, because the mode here is the lowest value of the nine, so it describes the quiet opening hours rather than a typical hour. The distractors: saying the mode can only be used when no value repeats reverses the definition, since a mode exists only because a value does repeat; saying the mode is the value that occurs most often is a correct definition, but being the commonest value does not make a value typical when it lies at one end of the data; saying the mode is the best average for any list of numbers ignores the fact that mean, median and mode each describe a population well in different circumstances.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 18 minutes — Method: the lower quartile is the 80 ÷ 4 = 20th value and the upper quartile is the 3 × 80 ÷ 4 = 60th value; locate each inside its class by linear interpolation, then subtract. Working: the 20th value lies between the running totals 8 and 28, so it is in the class 10 ≤ t < 20, which holds 20 journeys across 10 minutes, and it is the 20 − 8 = 12th of them, giving 10 + (12 ÷ 20) × 10 = 16 minutes; the 60th value lies between the running totals 52 and 72, so it is in the class 30 ≤ t < 40, which also holds 20 journeys across 10 minutes, and it is the 60 − 52 = 8th of them, giving 30 + (8 ÷ 20) × 10 = 34 minutes; subtracting, 34 − 16 = 18. Answer: an estimated interquartile range of 18 minutes. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from taking the lower boundaries of the two quartile classes, 30 − 10, which locates the classes but never the values inside them; 40 minutes comes from subtracting the two positions, 60 − 20, instead of the two times; 22 minutes comes from interpolating downwards from each upper boundary rather than upwards from each lower boundary, giving 20 − 6 = 14 and 40 − 4 = 36.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) £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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.