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) 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.
- (d) No, the range uses only the fastest and slowest time — Method: check what the range is built from, then look at what it leaves out. Working: both teams have a fastest time of 20 seconds and a slowest of 40 seconds, so both ranges are 40 − 20 = 20 seconds and Tomás has that part right. But the range is calculated from those two values alone. Six of Team A's seven times lie between 20 and 25 seconds, with a single time far out at 40; Team B is the other way round, with six of its seven times at 30 seconds or more and a single time far out at 20. So Team A bunches at the fast end and Team B at the slow end. The two patterns are quite different, and the range cannot see the difference because the five middle times never enter the calculation. Answer: no, because the range uses only the fastest and slowest time. The distractors: comparing the means answers a different question, since a mean measures position rather than spread, and two sets with the same spread can have different means; saying that equal ranges mean equal spread is the very assumption that fails here; saying that seven times each forces the spreads to match confuses the size of a data set with how its values are arranged inside it.
- (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) £11.00 — 1.5 × 6 = 9, and 9 + 2 = 11, so the estimated cost is £11.00. Choosing £9.00 stops after 1.5 × 6 = 9 and forgets to add the £2. Choosing £12.00 adds the mass and the constant first and then multiplies: 6 + 2 = 8, and 8 × 1.5 = 12.00. Choosing £13.50 swaps the gradient and the intercept, using y = 2x + 1.5 instead: 2 × 6 = 12, and 12 + 1.5 = 13.50.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) On average a plant grew 1.5 cm taller for each extra day — Method: in the equation of a line, the number multiplying x is the gradient, and a gradient states the change in y produced by an increase of 1 in x, read in the units of the two axes. Working: here x is measured in days and y in centimetres, so the gradient 1.5 carries the units centimetres per day. Testing it on the line, 5 days gives 1.5 × 5 + 4 = 11.5 cm and 6 days gives 1.5 × 6 + 4 = 13 cm, a rise of 1.5 cm for the one extra day. Answer: on average a plant grew 1.5 cm taller for each extra day of watering. The distractors: 1.5 cm as the height before any watering is the value of y when x is 0, which is the other number in the equation, 4 cm, so this swaps the gradient and the intercept; 1.5 cm as the gap between the tallest and the shortest plant reads the gradient as a range, when a range is a difference between two of the 16 plants and a gradient is a rate; 1.5 days for each extra centimetre inverts the rate, dividing days by centimetres instead of centimetres by days, and the line gives 1 cm of growth in two thirds of a day.
- (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.
- (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) 0.5 per gram — Method: turn the two known bars into frequencies using area, subtract from the total to find how many letters are left, then divide that frequency by the width of the last class to get its height. Working: the first bar covers 50 g at a frequency density of 1.2, giving 1.2 × 50 = 60 letters, and the second covers 50 g at 1.8, giving 1.8 × 50 = 90 letters; together that is 60 + 90 = 150 letters, so 200 − 150 = 50 letters remain; the class 100 ≤ m < 200 is 100 g wide, so its frequency density is 50 ÷ 100 = 0.5 per gram. Answer: 0.5 per gram. The distractors: 0.25 per gram comes from dividing the remaining 50 letters by the upper class boundary, 200, instead of by the class width of 100; 2 per gram comes from dividing the class width by the frequency, 100 ÷ 50, reversing the formula; 1.4 per gram comes from subtracting only the first bar's 60 letters, leaving 140, and then dividing by 100.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) Route 2, because its interquartile range is smaller — Method: for a journey where turning up on time matters, what matters is not the typical (median) time but how predictable it is — a smaller interquartile range means the middle half of journeys cluster closer together. Working: Route 1's median, 34 minutes, is in fact lower than Route 2's, 41 minutes, so Route 1 is faster on average; but Route 1's interquartile range, 22 minutes, is far larger than Route 2's, 6 minutes, so Route 1's times are much less predictable. Answer: Priya should choose Route 2, because its interquartile range is smaller, even though it is slower on average. Watch which statistic answers the question actually asked: Route 1 does not have the smaller interquartile range, Route 2 does, so picking Route 1 for that reason misreads the table; Route 1's median genuinely is the lower one, but a lower median answers 'which is faster', not 'which is more reliable'; and Route 2's median is not the lower one, so that claim about Route 2 is simply false.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.