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.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Statistics worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (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) 76 marks — Method: a mean of means only works when the groups are the same size, so rebuild each class's total mark, add the totals and divide by the number of pupils altogether. Working: Class A scored 30 × 72 = 2160 marks and Class B scored 20 × 82 = 1640 marks, giving 2160 + 1640 = 3800 marks between 50 pupils, so the overall mean is 3800 ÷ 50 = 76 marks. Answer: 76 marks. The distractors: 77 marks comes from averaging the two class means, (72 + 82) ÷ 2, which ignores the different class sizes; 78 marks comes from attaching each mean to the other class's size, (30 × 82 + 20 × 72) ÷ 50; 3800 marks comes from stopping at the combined total and never dividing by 50.
- (a) 62.5 — Method: a mean cannot be averaged with a new value — rebuild the total, add the new value to it, then divide by the new count. Working: three numbers with a mean of 50 have a total of 50 × 3 = 150; adding 100 makes the total 150 + 100 = 250; there are now 4 numbers, so the new mean is 250 ÷ 4 = 62.5. Answer: 62.5. The distractors: 75 comes from averaging the old mean with the new value, (50 + 100) ÷ 2, which ignores that three numbers pull against one; 50 comes from assuming an extra value leaves the mean unchanged; 37.5 comes from dividing the old total of 150 by the new count of 4, adding the new value to the count but not to the total.
- (d) Correlation is a link; causation is one causing the other — Method: the two words describe different claims — one is about a pattern in the data, the other is about what produced that pattern. Working: correlation says only that two quantities tend to change together, which is something a scatter graph can display; causation says that a change in one quantity actually brings about the change in the other, which needs evidence a scatter graph cannot supply, because a third quantity may be driving both. Answer: correlation is a link between the quantities, while causation is one quantity causing the change in another. The distractors: the statement giving causation as the link and correlation as the cause simply swaps the two words over; the statement that the words mean the same thing is the classic error of reading a correlation as proof of cause; the statement that a scatter graph shows causation but not correlation reverses what a scatter graph can do, since the pattern it displays is exactly the correlation.
- (c) 75 — Method: the number in a class is the area of its bar, frequency density × class width, so work out the frequency of each class that lies at or above 10 minutes and add them. Working: the class 10 ≤ t < 25 is 15 minutes wide with a frequency density of 3.2, giving 3.2 × 15 = 48 members; the class 25 ≤ t < 55 is 30 minutes wide with a frequency density of 0.9, giving 0.9 × 30 = 27 members; the total charged is 48 + 27 = 75. Answer: 75 members pay the extra charge. The distractors: 4.1 comes from adding the two frequency densities, 3.2 + 0.9, as though each height were a count; 93 comes from including the class 0 ≤ t < 10 as well, 1.8 × 10 = 18 added to 48 and 27, which charges every member; 27 comes from using only the class 25 ≤ t < 55 and forgetting that 10 ≤ t < 25 is also at or above 10 minutes.
- (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) 3 — Method: the height of a bar is its frequency density, frequency ÷ class width, so work out both heights and divide one by the other. Working: the class 0 ≤ t < 4 is 4 minutes wide and holds 30 visits, so its frequency density is 30 ÷ 4 = 7.5 per minute; the class 4 ≤ t < 20 is 16 minutes wide and holds 40 visits, so its frequency density is 40 ÷ 16 = 2.5 per minute; dividing the heights, 7.5 ÷ 2.5 = 3. Answer: the first bar is 3 times as tall. The distractors: 0.75 comes from comparing the frequencies, 30 ÷ 40, as though the frequencies were the heights, which is the mistake the unequal widths are there to expose; 4 comes from comparing the class widths, 16 ÷ 4, instead of the heights; 5 comes from subtracting the two frequency densities, 7.5 − 2.5, which answers how much taller rather than how many times taller.
- (c) The data show a link only; a third factor may affect both — Method: a study of this kind measures two quantities and reports how they change together; deciding that one of them produces the other is a further claim, and it needs evidence that the measurements alone cannot give. Working: the study shows that more coffee goes with better concentration, which is a positive correlation; but a third factor that was never measured, such as how motivated someone is, could raise both the coffee drinking and the concentration, and the concentration could equally be what leads to the extra coffee. Answer: the data show a link only, because a third factor may be affecting both quantities, so no claim about cause can be made. The distractors: calling the conclusion safe because the correlation is positive treats the direction of a correlation as proof of cause, which no direction can give; calling it wrong because the correlation is negative misreads the direction of the relationship, since the study reports both quantities rising together; saying the two quantities are not linked denies the correlation the study actually found, when what fails is only the claim about cause.
- (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.
- (d) 18 minutes — Method: the lower quartile is the 80 ÷ 4 = 20th value and the upper quartile is the 3 × 80 ÷ 4 = 60th value; locate each inside its class by linear interpolation, then subtract. Working: the 20th value lies between the running totals 8 and 28, so it is in the class 10 ≤ t < 20, which holds 20 journeys across 10 minutes, and it is the 20 − 8 = 12th of them, giving 10 + (12 ÷ 20) × 10 = 16 minutes; the 60th value lies between the running totals 52 and 72, so it is in the class 30 ≤ t < 40, which also holds 20 journeys across 10 minutes, and it is the 60 − 52 = 8th of them, giving 30 + (8 ÷ 20) × 10 = 34 minutes; subtracting, 34 − 16 = 18. Answer: an estimated interquartile range of 18 minutes. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from taking the lower boundaries of the two quartile classes, 30 − 10, which locates the classes but never the values inside them; 40 minutes comes from subtracting the two positions, 60 − 20, instead of the two times; 22 minutes comes from interpolating downwards from each upper boundary rather than upwards from each lower boundary, giving 20 − 6 = 14 and 40 − 4 = 36.
- (d) 648 kg — Method: to estimate a total from a sample, multiply the sample's mean by the number of items in the whole population, then check the units the question asks for. Working: 32.4 g × 20,000 = 648,000 g. Converting to kilograms, 648,000 ÷ 1,000 = 648 kg. This is only an estimate, not an exact total, because it assumes every one of the 20,000 packets has exactly the sample mean mass, when in reality individual packets vary above and below it. Giving 1.62 kg multiplies the mean by 50, the SAMPLE size, instead of by 20,000, the number of packets actually made that day — this finds the total mass of the 50 sampled packets, not the day's production. Giving 32.4 kg treats the sample mean itself, in grams, as if it already were the day's total mass in kilograms, skipping the scaling up altogether. Giving 648,000 kg correctly scales the mean up to the whole day's production but never converts the answer from grams to kilograms, leaving it 1,000 times too large. Always scale a sample's mean up by the SIZE OF THE WHOLE POPULATION, and always finish by checking the units the question asks for.
- (a) The median, as the one very large wage does not move it — Method: an average describes a population well when it sits close to most of the values, so compare what each average does when one value lies far from the rest. Working: in order the wages are 420, 440, 460, 480 and 1,500, so the median is the third of the five, £460. The mean uses every wage: 420 + 440 + 460 + 480 + 1,500 = 3,300 and 3,300 ÷ 5 = 660, so the mean is £660. Four of the five people earn less than £660, and the nearest of those four wages is £180 below it, so £660 describes nobody at the garage; £460 sits inside the group of four similar wages. Answer: the median, as the one very large wage does not move it, while that same wage drags the mean £200 above the median. The distractors: saying the median is always larger than the mean is an invented rule, and here the median £460 is smaller than the mean £660; saying the mean is the only average that uses all five wages is true as far as it goes, but using a value and being dragged by it are the same thing when that value is £1,500; saying £660 lies between the smallest and largest wage is true of every mean ever calculated, so it proves nothing about whether this one is typical.
- (a) 26 — Method: a line of best fit lets one quantity be predicted from the other, so the score is substituted into the equation of the line and the resulting inequality is solved for the number of hours. Working: a score of at least 80 means 2.5x + 15 ≥ 80; taking 15 from both sides gives 2.5x ≥ 65, and dividing both sides by 2.5 gives x ≥ 26, so the least whole number of hours is 26. Checking, 2.5 × 26 + 15 = 80, which does reach the target. Answer: 26 hours — and this is only an estimate, because a line of best fit predicts a trend rather than an individual result, and a prediction made outside the range of hours the pupils actually revised for would be an extrapolation and less reliable still. The distractors: 27 comes from reaching 26 and then rounding up again, although 26 hours already gives a score of exactly 80; 32 comes from 80 ÷ 2.5, which ignores the 15 in the equation of the line; 38 comes from (80 + 15) ÷ 2.5, that is from adding the 15 instead of subtracting it when rearranging.
- (b) 5 ≤ m < 10 — Method: with 60 values the median is the 60 ÷ 2 = 30th value in order, so build a running total until it first reaches 30. Working: the running totals are 22 after the first class, 22 + 20 = 42 after the second, 51 after the third, 56 after the fourth and 60 after the fifth; the 30th parcel is past 22 but not past 42, so it lies in the second class. Answer: the median lies in the class 5 ≤ m < 10. The distractors: 0 ≤ m < 5 comes from giving the class with the greatest frequency, 22, which is the modal class and not the median class; 10 ≤ m < 20 comes from choosing the middle class in the list of five instead of counting to the middle value; 20 ≤ m < 30 comes from halving the range of the data, 50 ÷ 2 = 25, and giving the class that contains 25 kg rather than the class that contains the 30th parcel.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.