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) 16 — Method: rearrange interquartile range = upper quartile − lower quartile to make the lower quartile the subject: lower quartile = upper quartile − interquartile range, then check the answer sits in the right place in the list. Working: there are 11 values, so 11 + 1 = 12; the upper quartile sits at position 3 × 12 ÷ 4 = 9, which is 35, and x sits at position 12 ÷ 4 = 3, which is the lower quartile. So x = 35 − 19 = 16, and 16 does sit between the 2nd value, 9, and the 4th value, 17, as it should. Answer: x = 16. Watch how you rearrange and where you count to: adding instead of subtracting, 35 + 19 = 54, treats the interquartile range as something added on rather than a gap taken away; subtracting in the wrong order, 19 − 35 = −16, finds the right two numbers but flips the sign; and counting to the 8th value instead of the 9th treats 31 as the upper quartile, giving 31 − 19 = 12, one position short of where the upper quartile actually sits.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (a) Minutes a candle has burned and length remaining — As a candle burns for longer, less of it remains, so these two variables move in opposite directions as one increases — that is negative correlation. A pupil's shoe size generally increases as they get older, so age and shoe size show positive correlation, not negative, since both rise together. A football team's shirt colour is not a numerical quantity linked to how many matches it wins, so shirt colour and number of wins show no correlation at all. The number of letters in a pupil's name has no real connection to their ability in maths, so that pair also shows no correlation.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 23.57 °C — Method: add all seven temperatures, divide by the number of readings and round only at the end. Working: 22 + 24 + 23 + 25 + 26 + 21 + 24 = 165, and 165 ÷ 7 = 23.5714…, which rounds to 23.57 to 2 decimal places. Answer: 23.57 °C. The distractors: 24 °C comes from writing down the mode, the only temperature recorded twice, instead of the mean; 27.5 °C comes from dividing the total by 6 instead of by the 7 days recorded; 5 °C comes from working out the range, 26 − 21, which is a measure of spread and not an average.
- (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) 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.