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) No — median £505 at A vs £510 at B. — Branch A's seven wages in order are £480, £495, £500, £505, £510, £515 and £1,200, so the median, the 4th value, is £505. Branch B's in order are £480, £490, £500, £510, £520, £530 and £540, so the median is £510. Since £505 is lower than £510, the median wage is not higher at Branch A, so the claim is not fairly supported. Choosing 'Yes — mean £600.71 at A vs £510 at B' uses the mean: 480 + 495 + 500 + 505 + 510 + 515 + 1200 = 4205, and 4205 ÷ 7 = 600.71, a figure pulled upward by the £1,200 outlier that does not represent a typical wage. Choosing 'Yes — median £515 at A vs £510 at B' miscounts the middle position, taking the 6th wage, £515, instead of the correct 4th value, £505. Choosing 'Yes — highest wage £1,200 at A vs £540 at B' compares the highest wage at each branch rather than a measure of the typical, or average, wage.
- (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) 72° — The angle is 12 ÷ 60 × 360 = 72°. Choosing 150° divides football's frequency of 25 instead of badminton's 12: 25 ÷ 60 × 360 = 150. Choosing 20° finds badminton as a percentage of the members, 12 ÷ 60 × 100 = 20, rather than an angle in degrees. Choosing 90° uses 48, the total of the other three activities, as the total instead of the full 60 members: 12 ÷ 48 × 360 = 90.
- (c) 40 minutes — Method: for grouped data, estimate the mean using the midpoint of each class — multiply each midpoint by its frequency, add the results, then divide by the total frequency. Working: the midpoints are 10, 30, 50 and 70 minutes. 10 × 5 = 50. 30 × 10 = 300. 50 × 10 = 500. 70 × 5 = 350. Σfx = 50 + 300 + 500 + 350 = 1200. Σf = 5 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 30. Estimated mean = 1200 ÷ 30 = 40 minutes. Using the upper boundary of each class instead of the midpoint — 20 × 5 = 100, 40 × 10 = 400, 60 × 10 = 600, 80 × 5 = 400 — gives a total of 1500 and an estimate of 1500 ÷ 30 = 50 minutes, too high because a boundary is not the middle of the class. Averaging the frequencies themselves, 5, 10, 10 and 5, ignores the times altogether and gives 7.5. Stopping after Σfx = 1200 without dividing by the total frequency gives a number far too large to be a time in minutes. Always find the midpoint of each class before multiplying by the frequency, and always divide by Σf at the end.
- (c) No — 8 from one class is too small to represent the school. — Method: judge reliability by asking whether the sample is both large enough, and spread across the population, relative to what it is meant to represent. Working: 8 pupils is a tiny fraction of the school's 1,000 pupils, and all 8 come from a single class rather than a range of year groups, so the sample is both too small and too narrow to represent the whole school reliably. She is not right. Saying any sample size gives an equally reliable estimate ignores that reliability generally improves with a larger, more representative sample. Saying the method is unreliable because it was not done online is not a reason connected to sample size or representativeness at all. Saying 8 is reliable because it is more than half her class compares the sample to the wrong population — the school has 1,000 pupils, not one class. Always judge a sample's size against the population it is meant to represent, not against a smaller group within it.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 25 — Method: the median is estimated at position n ÷ 2 in the cumulative frequency table, then interpolated across the class it falls in: lower boundary, plus the fraction of the way through the class, times the class width. Working: there are 80 sacks, so the median sits at position 80 ÷ 2 = 40. Before the class 20 ≤ m < 30 the cumulative frequency is 22, and by the end of it, it is 58, so this class holds the 40th sack; its frequency is 58 − 22 = 36 and its width is 30 − 20 = 10. The extra distance needed into the class is 40 − 22 = 18, and 18 ÷ 36 × 10 = 5, so the median is 20 + 5 = 25. Answer: the estimated median mass is 25 kg. Watch which numbers the interpolation uses: reading off just the lower boundary of the median class, 20, ignores how far into that class the 40th sack actually falls; treating n ÷ 2 = 40 itself as the median mass mistakes a position in the list for a mass in kilograms; and using the target position, 40, as the extra distance into the class instead of subtracting the sacks already counted changes the calculation to 20 + 40 ÷ 36 × 10. That comes to 20 + 11.1 = 31.1, overshooting the class because it never subtracts the 22 sacks already counted before it.
- (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) 60 — Method: on a histogram the frequency of a class is its frequency density × its class width, and the frequencies of all the classes add up to the total, so turn each labelled bar into a frequency and subtract their total from 250. Working: 10 ≤ age < 20 has width 20 − 10 = 10, so its frequency is 4.5 × 10 = 45; 20 ≤ age < 35 has width 35 − 20 = 15, so its frequency is 6 × 15 = 90; 50 ≤ age < 70 has width 70 − 50 = 20, so its frequency is 2.75 × 20 = 55. Those three come to 45 + 90 + 55 = 190, and the total is 250, so the missing frequency is 250 − 190 = 60. Answer: the class 35 ≤ age < 50 has 60 members. Watch what you do with the total and the three frequencies you have found: giving the total, 250, as the answer forgets that three bars have already accounted for some of the members; giving 190, the total of the other three classes, reports how many members are not in this class rather than how many are; and leaving one of the three out of the subtraction, for example 45 + 90 = 135 and 250 − 135 = 115, still owes the class at 50 ≤ age < 70 its 55 members.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.