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
- (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.
- (c) 28 — Method: multiply the number of whole symbols by the value of one symbol, then add the value of any half symbol shown. Working: 3 whole symbols represent 3 × 8 = 24 cars. The half symbol represents 4 cars. Total cars sold in March = 24 + 4 = 28. Leaving out the half symbol, 3 × 8 = 24, undercounts by exactly the value of that half symbol. Treating the half symbol as if it were a full symbol, 4 × 8 = 32, overcounts because it doubles the value the half symbol is worth. Giving 3.5 reports the number of symbols shown, not the number of cars they represent — the key still needs to be applied. Always apply the key to every symbol shown, including a half symbol, rather than reading off the symbol count itself.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) Q was faster on average and more consistent — Method: compare the medians for the average and the interquartile ranges for the spread, remembering that a shorter time is faster and a smaller interquartile range means more consistent. Working: the median for class Q is 35 seconds against 38 seconds for class P, so class Q was faster on average; the interquartile range for class P is 46 − 24 = 22 seconds and for class Q it is 44 − 30 = 14 seconds, so class Q's times are more tightly grouped. Answer: class Q was faster on average and more consistent. The distractors: calling Q slower comes from comparing the lower quartiles, 30 against 24, as though a quartile were the average; calling Q less consistent comes from using the gap between the median and the upper quartile as the spread, 44 − 35 = 9 against 46 − 38 = 8, instead of the full interquartile range; the statement that Q was both slower and less consistent comes from making both of those mistakes together.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 29 — Method: with an even number of values there is no single middle value, so the median is the mean of the two values either side of the middle. Working: the six numbers are already in order and 6 ÷ 2 = 3, so the middle pair are the third and fourth values, 22 and 36; their mean is (22 + 36) ÷ 2 = 58 ÷ 2 = 29. Answer: 29, which lies between the two middle values as a median of an even data set must. The distractors: 22 comes from taking the lower of the two middle values and stopping there instead of averaging the pair; 36 comes from taking the larger value of that pair because it sits just past the halfway point of the list; 34 comes from working out the range, 47 − 13, instead of a measure of centre.
- (c) 90 — Method: the height of a bar is its frequency density, so twice as tall means twice the frequency density — not twice the frequency, because the two classes have different widths. Then frequency = frequency density × class width. Working: the first bar has frequency density 3 per cm, so the second has frequency density 2 × 3 = 6 per cm; the class 30 ≤ x < 45 is 45 − 30 = 15 cm wide, so its frequency is 6 × 15 = 90. Answer: 90 rods. The distractors: 120 comes from doubling the first bar's frequency instead of its height — the first class holds 3 × 20 = 60 rods, and doubling that ignores the fact that the second class is narrower; 45 comes from using the first bar's frequency density, 3, for the second bar, 3 × 15, and so never using the information that it is twice as tall; 6 comes from stopping at the frequency density of the taller bar and quoting a height as though it were a count.
- (c) Because every pupil has an equal chance of being picked — Method: whether a sample represents its population is decided by the selection method, not by the size of the sample, so ask whether the method gives every member of the population the same chance of being chosen. Working: the names are drawn at random from a list of all 10,000 pupils, so each pupil has the same chance, 500 out of 10,000, of being drawn, and no group of pupils is more likely to appear than any other; that is what keeps bias out of the sample. Answer: because every pupil has an equal chance of being picked. The distractors: the reply about 5% treats the sampling fraction as the test of fairness, but a badly chosen 5% is still biased and a well chosen 1% is not; the reply about 500 being large enough makes size the test instead, which is the same mistake in another form, since a large sample drawn from one school would still misrepresent the city; the reply about the most willing pupils describes self-selection, which hands the choice of who is in the sample to the pupils who feel most strongly about the question.
- (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.
- (a) 150 bulbs — Method: assume the proportion faulty in a random sample is the proportion faulty in the whole day's output, and scale the sample up to the population. Working: the sample of 80 has to be scaled up to 4,000 bulbs, and 4,000 ÷ 80 = 50, so the day's output is 50 sample-sized batches. Each batch is expected to contain the same 3 faulty bulbs, so the estimate is 3 × 50 = 150. Answer: 150 bulbs, and it is an estimate, because another sample of 80 would probably contain a different number of faulty bulbs. The distractors: 50 bulbs is the scale factor 4,000 ÷ 80 written down as though it were the answer, so it reports how many batches there are rather than how many faulty bulbs; 120 bulbs comes from reading 3 out of 80 as 3%, then taking 0.03 × 4,000 = 120, but 3 out of 80 is 3.75%; 240 bulbs comes from 3 × 80 = 240, multiplying the faulty bulbs by the size of the sample instead of by the scale factor, which uses the 80 twice and the 4,000 not at all.
- (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) 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.
- (a) (30, 60) — Method: a cumulative frequency point is plotted at the upper boundary of its class, paired with the running total of all the frequencies up to and including that class. Working: the running totals are 7, then 7 + 19 = 26, then 26 + 34 = 60, then 60 + 40 = 100; the class 20 ≤ t < 30 has upper boundary 30, and the running total there is 60. Answer: the point for that class is plotted at 30 seconds against a cumulative frequency of 60. The distractors: (25, 60) comes from plotting at the class midpoint, which is what a frequency polygon uses and not what a cumulative frequency diagram uses; (30, 34) comes from plotting the class frequency, 34, rather than the running total; (20, 60) comes from plotting at the lower boundary of the class, which would claim that 60 calls took less than 20 seconds when only 26 did.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.