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
- (a) A vertical line chart (discrete numerical data) — The number of pets is discrete numerical data — whole-number values such as 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 — recorded for one variable, so a vertical line chart is the chart specified for this kind of data. A bar chart is used for categorical data, such as favourite colour, not numerical values counted like this. A pie chart shows proportions of a whole and does not show the frequency of each separate value. A scatter graph compares two different variables against each other, and only one variable, the number of pets, is recorded here.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 25% — First find the number of fruit cakes: 80 − 34 − 26 = 20. Then write this as a percentage of the total: 20 ÷ 80 × 100 = 25%. Giving 20% comes from reporting the count of fruit cakes, 20, directly as a percentage, without dividing by the total of 80 first. Giving 32.5% computes the percentage of chocolate cakes instead of fruit cakes: 26 ÷ 80 × 100 = 32.5%. Giving 42.5% computes the percentage of sponge cakes instead of fruit cakes: 34 ÷ 80 × 100 = 42.5%.
- (b) Town B — higher median and smaller IQR — Method: 'higher and more consistent' needs two comparisons — the median for typical price, and the interquartile range for spread, with a smaller interquartile range meaning more consistent. Working: Town B's median, £235,000, is higher than Town A's, £220,000. Town A's interquartile range is 310 − 180 = 130 and Town B's is 260 − 175 = 85, so Town B's interquartile range is the smaller of the two. Answer: Town B has both the higher median and the smaller interquartile range, so it is the town with higher, more consistent prices. Watch which combination of median and interquartile range each statement claims, and for which town: claiming Town A has the higher median and the smaller interquartile range gets both comparisons wrong, since Town B leads on both; claiming Town A has the higher median (still wrong) but the larger interquartile range at least reads the spread correctly, without it rescuing the false median claim; and claiming Town B has the higher median (correct) but the larger interquartile range misreads the spread — Town B's interquartile range is the smaller of the two, not the larger.
- (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.
- (b) 6 — Method: frequency density = frequency ÷ class width. Working: the class 12 ≤ h < 18 has width 18 − 12 = 6, so frequency density = 36 ÷ 6 = 6. Answer: the frequency density is 6 seedlings per cm. Watch which numbers you use: taking the lower bound, 12, as the width instead of 18 − 12 = 6 gives 36 ÷ 12 = 3; dividing the total number of seedlings, 90, rather than this class's frequency, 36, by the width gives 90 ÷ 6 = 15, a density that belongs to no single class; and multiplying instead of dividing gives 36 × 6 = 216, far too large a density for so narrow a class.
- (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.
- (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.