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) Drawing 60 names at random from a list of all 1200 pupils — Method: a sample is random when every member of the population has the same chance of being chosen and nobody, including the pupils themselves, can influence who ends up in it; test each method against that. Working: drawing names from a list of all 1200 pupils gives each pupil the same chance, 60 out of 1200, whatever their year group, class or opinion, so the method is random. Answer: drawing 60 names at random from a list of all 1200 pupils. The distractors: asking the pupils who volunteer is self-selection, and the pupils with the strongest views volunteer first, so they decide the sample; asking the pupils nearest the door is convenience sampling, which reaches only those who happen to be in one place at one time; asking two Year 10 classes samples a cluster, so every pupil in the other year groups has no chance of being chosen at all.
- (b) Town B — higher median and smaller IQR — Method: 'higher and more consistent' needs two comparisons — the median for typical price, and the interquartile range for spread, with a smaller interquartile range meaning more consistent. Working: Town B's median, £235,000, is higher than Town A's, £220,000. Town A's interquartile range is 310 − 180 = 130 and Town B's is 260 − 175 = 85, so Town B's interquartile range is the smaller of the two. Answer: Town B has both the higher median and the smaller interquartile range, so it is the town with higher, more consistent prices. Watch which combination of median and interquartile range each statement claims, and for which town: claiming Town A has the higher median and the smaller interquartile range gets both comparisons wrong, since Town B leads on both; claiming Town A has the higher median (still wrong) but the larger interquartile range at least reads the spread correctly, without it rescuing the false median claim; and claiming Town B has the higher median (correct) but the larger interquartile range misreads the spread — Town B's interquartile range is the smaller of the two, not the larger.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (b) 120, unreliable — x = 25 is outside 1 to 12 — The line of best fit is y = 4x + 20. 4 × 25 = 100, and 100 + 20 = 120, so the estimate is y = 120. But x = 25 lies far outside the plotted range of 1 to 12 years, so this is an extrapolation, and the estimate is not reliable. Reaching 100 instead of 120 comes from 4 × 25 = 100 with the intercept of 20 left out — still correctly flagged as unreliable, but the wrong value. Calling the estimate reliable simply because it was calculated correctly, giving 120, wrongly assumes that a correct calculation is automatically trustworthy, ignoring that x = 25 lies far beyond the data actually collected. Reaching 68, from 4 × 12 = 48 and 48 + 20 = 68, substitutes x = 12, the top of the plotted range, instead of the assistant's actual x = 25, and wrongly calls that reliable because 12 lies inside the range.
- (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) 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.
- (a) Equal means; Class A is more consistent, smaller range. — Method: when two data sets share a measure of location, compare a measure of spread to say more about consistency. Working: both classes have the same mean mark, 14, so on average they performed equally well. Class A has the smaller range, 6, so its marks are more tightly grouped around 14 than Class B's marks, which vary by as much as 14. So Class A's marks were more consistent, even though neither class did better on average. Saying Class B did better because it has the bigger range confuses a wide spread with a high score — a big range describes variability, not performance. Saying Class A did better because it has the smaller range makes the same mistake in the other direction: the two classes are tied on the mean, so neither one 'did better'. Saying the classes cannot be compared because their means are equal misses the whole point of also comparing the range. Always compare both an average AND a spread before describing two data sets — either one alone tells only half the story.
- (c) 15 — Method: the interquartile range is the upper quartile take away the lower quartile, IQR = Q3 − Q1. Working: n + 1 = 15 + 1 = 16, so the lower quartile sits at position 16 ÷ 4 = 4, the 4th value in the list, which is 12; the upper quartile sits at position 3 × 4 = 12, the 12th value, which is 27. So 27 − 12 = 15. Answer: the interquartile range is 15 minutes. Watch which values you use and which way round: taking the smallest time away from the largest, 34 − 5 = 29, finds the range, which uses every value between the extremes rather than just the middle half; taking the median away from the upper quartile instead of the lower quartile, 27 − 19 = 8, swaps the median in for the lower quartile; and reversing the subtraction, 12 − 27 = −15, finds the right two values but in the wrong order — an interquartile range is never negative.
- (c) 75 — Method: the number in a class is the area of its bar, frequency density × class width, so work out the frequency of each class that lies at or above 10 minutes and add them. Working: the class 10 ≤ t < 25 is 15 minutes wide with a frequency density of 3.2, giving 3.2 × 15 = 48 members; the class 25 ≤ t < 55 is 30 minutes wide with a frequency density of 0.9, giving 0.9 × 30 = 27 members; the total charged is 48 + 27 = 75. Answer: 75 members pay the extra charge. The distractors: 4.1 comes from adding the two frequency densities, 3.2 + 0.9, as though each height were a count; 93 comes from including the class 0 ≤ t < 10 as well, 1.8 × 10 = 18 added to 48 and 27, which charges every member; 27 comes from using only the class 25 ≤ t < 55 and forgetting that 10 ≤ t < 25 is also at or above 10 minutes.
- (d) 45 — Method: convert the angle into a fraction of the full circle, 360°, then apply that fraction to the total number of shoppers. Working: the card sector is 90° out of 360°, a fraction of 90 ÷ 360 = 0.25. Applying that fraction to the 180 shoppers gives 0.25 × 180 = 45 shoppers. Giving 90 states the angle itself, not a number of shoppers — the angle first has to be converted into a fraction. Using the remaining angle, 360 − 90 = 270°, and scaling that, 270 ÷ 360 × 180 = 135, finds the number who did NOT pay by card, not the number who did. Dividing 360 by 90, 360 ÷ 90 = 4, finds how many equal 90° sectors fit in the circle, a fact about the pie chart's shape, not about the shoppers at all. Always convert the angle to a fraction of 360° first, and apply that same fraction to the total number of people.
- (b) All 2,000 members of the sports centre. — Method: in a survey, the population is the whole group the survey is trying to find out about, and the sample is the smaller group actually asked. Working: this survey wants to know what the sports centre's members think, so the population is every one of the 2,000 members — whether or not they were personally asked. Saying the population is the 100 members who were asked names the sample, not the population; the sample is drawn FROM the population, so it is smaller than it, not the same as it. Saying the population is everybody who lives in Ipswich widens the group far beyond who the survey is actually about — plenty of Ipswich residents are not members of the sports centre at all, so they are outside this survey altogether. Saying the population is the members who say they are unhappy confuses the population with a result of the survey: whether a member turns out to be happy or unhappy is something the survey finds out, not part of the definition of who is being studied. The population is always the whole group the question is about, before any sampling or any results come in.
- (c) 70 — Method: estimate the median from the cumulative frequency table by interpolation: find its position, n ÷ 2, locate the class it falls in, then add the fraction of the way through that class (adjusted for the cumulative frequency reached before it) to the class's lower boundary. Working: there are 180 riders, so the median is at position 180 ÷ 2 = 90. Before the class 60 ≤ d < 80 the cumulative frequency is 60, and by the end of it, 120, so the 90th rider falls in this class; its frequency is 120 − 60 = 60 and its width is 80 − 60 = 20. The extra distance needed into the class is 90 − 60 = 30, and 30 ÷ 60 × 20 = 10, so the median is 60 + 10 = 70. Answer: the estimated median distance is 70 km. Watch which numbers the interpolation actually uses: reading off just the class's lower boundary, 60, ignores how far into the class the 90th rider falls; using the target position, 90, as the extra distance instead of subtracting the 60 riders already counted before the class gives 90 ÷ 60 × 20 = 30, so 60 + 30 = 90, overshooting by treating the whole position as if none of it had already been counted; and using the total number of riders, 180, instead of half of it as the target position lands in the very last class, giving an estimate of 130 km — further than any rider is known to have ridden by that point in the table.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.