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) 38, and fairly confident, as 12 °C is inside the range — Method: substitute the forecast temperature into the equation of the line of best fit, then judge the prediction by where that temperature sits among the data the line was drawn from. Working: putting x = 12 into y = −3x + 74 gives −3 × 12 + 74 = 38, so the line predicts 38 hot chocolates. The recorded temperatures run from 4 °C to 18 °C, and 12 °C lies inside that interval, so this is interpolation, the safer kind of prediction. Answer: 38, and fairly confident, as 12 °C is inside the range; the owner should still expect the true figure to differ a little, since the points only lie near the line and not on it. The distractors: being completely certain treats a line of best fit as a rule that fixes each day's sales, when it describes a trend that individual days depart from; saying 12 °C is outside the range misreads the interval 4 °C to 18 °C, and the wrong warning would be attached to a sound prediction; 110 comes from −3 × 12 being taken as +36, giving 36 + 74 = 110, which loses the negative gradient and so predicts that a warm day sells more hot chocolate than a cold one.
- (b) 29 — There are 40 − 24 = 16 males, and 15 of them prefer cardio, so 16 − 15 = 1 male prefers weights. There are 24 females, and 10 prefer weights, so 24 − 10 = 14 females prefer cardio. Altogether, 15 + 14 = 29 people prefer cardio. Choosing 15 only counts the males who prefer cardio and forgets the females. Choosing 11 adds the two weights figures, 1 + 10 = 11, instead of the two cardio figures. Choosing 30 comes from 40 − 10, subtracting only the number of females who prefer weights from the grand total, rather than finding both cardio sub-totals separately.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 210 — 350 − 150 = 200. 200 ÷ 10 = 20, so the gradient is 20. Using the point (5, 150): 20 × 5 = 100, so 150 − 100 = 50 is the intercept, giving the line y = 20x + 50. At x = 8: 20 × 8 = 160, and 160 + 50 = 210, so the estimated number of visitors is 210. Choosing 160 stops after 20 × 8 = 160 and forgets to add the intercept of 50. Choosing 250 comes from averaging the two given y-values: 150 + 350 = 500, and 500 ÷ 2 = 250, instead of using the line's equation. Choosing 240 assumes the visitors are directly proportional to the hours of sunshine using the first point, 150 × 8 ÷ 5 = 240, which ignores that the line does not pass through the origin.
- (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.
- (b) Q was faster on average and more consistent — Method: compare the medians for the average and the interquartile ranges for the spread, remembering that a shorter time is faster and a smaller interquartile range means more consistent. Working: the median for class Q is 35 seconds against 38 seconds for class P, so class Q was faster on average; the interquartile range for class P is 46 − 24 = 22 seconds and for class Q it is 44 − 30 = 14 seconds, so class Q's times are more tightly grouped. Answer: class Q was faster on average and more consistent. The distractors: calling Q slower comes from comparing the lower quartiles, 30 against 24, as though a quartile were the average; calling Q less consistent comes from using the gap between the median and the upper quartile as the spread, 44 − 35 = 9 against 46 − 38 = 8, instead of the full interquartile range; the statement that Q was both slower and less consistent comes from making both of those mistakes together.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.