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
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 15 — Year 11 has 50 − 28 = 22 pupils in total. Of the 22 pupils who walk in total, 15 are in Year 10, so 22 − 15 = 7 Year 11 pupils walk. Subtracting that from the Year 11 total gives 22 − 7 = 15 Year 11 pupils who are driven. Choosing 28 takes the whole school's driven total, 50 − 22 = 28, and treats it as if it were Year 11's alone, without separating the year groups. Choosing 7 correctly finds how many Year 11 pupils walk but stops there, giving that figure instead of the number who are driven. Choosing 35 comes from 50 − 15, subtracting the Year 10 walkers from the whole school total rather than working within Year 11.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.