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) Only internet users reach the website; others are excluded. — Method: a sample is biased when it systematically leaves out part of the population, or systematically over-represents another part. Working: anyone without internet access, or who does not visit the council's website, has NO chance of being included — the sample is drawn only from internet-using residents, which is not the whole town. Saying too many people might respond because the survey is free confuses bias with sample size — bias is about who CAN be reached, not how many respond. Saying people might lie describes a different problem, response honesty, not who was sampled in the first place. Saying online surveys cannot be anonymous is not a reason connected to bias at all. A sample is biased when part of the population has no chance of being included, whatever the reason for that.
- (b) 55 — Method: count the classes that lie wholly above 8 minutes, then use linear interpolation for the class that 8 cuts through, assuming the delays in that class are spread evenly. Working: the class 10 ≤ d < 20 lies wholly above 8 and holds 25 buses; the value 8 lies in the class 5 ≤ d < 10, which is 5 minutes wide and holds 75 buses, and the part above 8 runs from 8 to 10, a width of 2, so the estimated share is (2 ÷ 5) × 75 = 30 buses; the estimate is 30 + 25 = 55. Answer: about 55 refunds. The distractors: 100 comes from adding the whole of the class 5 ≤ d < 10, 75 + 25, and so refunding buses only 5 minutes late; 25 comes from using only the class 10 ≤ d < 20 and ignoring the part class that 8 minutes cuts through; 70 comes from taking the part of the class from 5 up to 8 instead of from 8 up to 10, giving (3 ÷ 5) × 75 = 45 and then 45 + 25.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) Class X has the higher median and the wider spread — Method: compare the two box plots statistic by statistic — median for location, and the interquartile range for spread — checking the true value of each rather than assuming a pattern. Working: Class X's median is 60 and Class Y's is 58, so Class X's median is the higher one. Class X's interquartile range is 70 − 45 = 25 and Class Y's is 65 − 50 = 15 (and the ranges follow the same order: 95 − 20 = 75 against 80 − 35 = 45), so Class X also has the wider spread. Answer: Class X has both the higher median and the wider spread. Watch that each half of a compound statement is checked separately: claiming Class Y has the higher median and the wider spread gets both comparisons backwards; claiming Class X has the higher median but the narrower spread keeps the median right while reading the spread the wrong way round; and claiming Class Y has the higher median but the narrower spread swaps the median comparison while getting the spread right.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 3/10 — There are 60 − 9 = 51 right-handed pupils. Of the 24 pupils who prefer Art, 6 are left-handed, so 24 − 6 = 18 are right-handed and prefer Art. The probability that a randomly chosen pupil is right-handed and prefers Art is 18/60, which simplifies to 3/10. Giving 2/5 is 24/60 simplified — the probability of preferring Art, ignoring the right-handed condition entirely. Giving 17/20 is 51/60 simplified — the probability of being right-handed, ignoring the Art condition entirely. Giving 1/10 is 6/60 simplified — the probability of being left-handed and preferring Art, the wrong hand condition.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.