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) 13 — The total is 50, and the two known parts are 22 (tea) and 15 (coffee), so 50 − 22 − 15 = 13 hot chocolates. Choosing 28 comes from 50 − 22, subtracting only the tea and forgetting the coffee. Choosing 35 comes from 50 − 15, subtracting only the coffee and forgetting the tea. Choosing 37 comes from 22 + 15, which finds how many drinks were tea or coffee, not the number left over for hot chocolate.
- (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) 40 — Method: the mean is the total divided by how many values there are, so rearranging gives total = mean × number of values. Working: the mean is 8 and there are 5 numbers, so the total is 8 × 5 = 40. Answer: 40, and checking, 40 ÷ 5 = 8, which is the mean given. The distractors: 13 comes from adding the mean and the count, 8 + 5, instead of multiplying them; 1.6 comes from dividing the mean by the count, 8 ÷ 5, which reverses the relationship; 8 comes from quoting the mean itself as the total, which is only true when there is a single number.
- (d) 300 pupils — Method: an estimate for a whole population is made by finding the proportion in the sample and applying that same proportion to the population. Working: in the sample 30 of the 50 pupils prefer sport, a proportion of 30 ÷ 50 = 0.6, and applying that proportion to the school gives 0.6 × 500 = 300 pupils. Answer: 300 pupils, and it is only an estimate, because a different random sample of 50 would give a slightly different figure. The distractors: 200 pupils comes from scaling up the 20 pupils in the sample who did not prefer sport, 20 × 10, which answers the opposite question; 150 pupils comes from reading 30 out of 50 as 30% and taking 30% of 500; 60 pupils comes from working out the proportion correctly as 60% and then writing the 60 down as a number of pupils instead of applying it to the 500.
- (a) No, 150 pupils are a tenth of the school, chosen at random — Method: judge a sample on two things, whether every member of the population had the same chance of being chosen, and whether the sample is large enough to carry a pattern. Working: the 150 pupils were drawn from the register of every pupil in the school, so no year group or set is shut out and no pupil chooses to take part; and 150 ÷ 1,500 = 0.1, so one pupil in ten has been asked. A random sample of that share is ample for an estimate of how long the school's pupils spend on homework. Answer: no, because 150 pupils are a tenth of the school and were chosen at random. The distractors: saying a random sample always gives the exact school figure reaches the same verdict for a reason that is false, since a second random sample of 150 would give a slightly different mean; saying 150 pupils cannot be picked at random from 1,500 treats randomness as something only a whole population can have, when drawing names from the register is exactly how a random sample is taken; saying that only asking all 1,500 could show anything rejects sampling altogether, which would leave no way to study any population too large to count.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 1 — Method: for data in a frequency table, find the position of the median using (n + 1) ÷ 2, then read off the value at that position from the cumulative frequencies. Working: there are 19 pupils, so the median is the 10th value. The cumulative frequencies are 7 (up to 0 pets), 10 (up to 1 pet), 14 (up to 2 pets) and 19 (up to 3 pets). The 10th value falls at the end of the '1 pet' group, so the median is 1 pet. Giving 0 pets is the mode — the category with the highest frequency, 7 — not the median. Giving 3, the highest number of pets minus the lowest, finds the range, a different statistic entirely. Giving 19 states the total number of pupils, not a number of pets at all. Find the middle POSITION first, then read off the value it belongs to — do not confuse it with the mode, the range or the total.
- (d) 45 — Method: a cumulative frequency is a running total — it counts everybody in every class up to and including the one that ends at the value given. Working: the classes that lie wholly below 30 minutes are 0 ≤ t < 10, 10 ≤ t < 20 and 20 ≤ t < 30, with frequencies 6, 14 and 25, so the running total is 6 + 14 = 20 and then 20 + 25 = 45. Answer: 45 people took less than 30 minutes. The distractors: 25 comes from quoting the frequency of the class 20 ≤ t < 30 on its own instead of the running total; 65 comes from accumulating one class too many and including 30 ≤ t < 40, which is 45 + 20; 35 comes from accumulating from the top downwards, 15 + 20, which counts the people who took 30 minutes or more rather than fewer.
- (a) 27 — Method: turn the mean into a total using total = mean × number of values, then subtract the numbers that are already known. Working: four numbers with a mean of 18 have a total of 18 × 4 = 72; the three known numbers give 10 + 15 + 20 = 45; so x = 72 − 45 = 27. Answer: 27, and checking, (10 + 15 + 20 + 27) ÷ 4 = 72 ÷ 4 = 18. The distractors: 72 comes from stopping at the total the four numbers must reach and never subtracting the known three; 18 comes from assuming the missing number must equal the mean; 45 comes from stopping at the total of the three known numbers.
- (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.
- (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) x = 0 gives y = −20: a negative number sold — The y-intercept is the value the line predicts when x = 0: y = 3 × 0 − 20 = −20. A kiosk cannot sell a negative number of ice creams, so this is not a sensible estimate. The 3 in the equation is the gradient, not the intercept, so an option claiming x = 0 gives y = 3 has swapped the two numbers around — substituting x = 0 makes the 3x term equal 0, leaving −20, not 3. The danger of extrapolating to very high temperatures is a real issue with this line, but it is a different issue from the y-intercept, so it does not answer this question. And whether x = 0 could occur on a trading day is beside the point: the model still makes that prediction, and it is the prediction itself, −20, that is impossible.
- (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) No, the size of the fire affects both of the quantities — Method: correlation says that two quantities change together; a claim that one of them produces the other is a further claim, and it needs evidence that a scatter graph on its own cannot give. Working: the graph does show strong positive correlation, so more engines did go with greater damage. But neither quantity was set by the researchers: both were decided by how large the fire was. A large blaze brings many appliances and also destroys a great deal, while a small one brings few and destroys little, so a third quantity is driving both of the recorded ones. Answer: no, because the size of the fire affects both of the quantities. The distractors: saying the correlation is negative contradicts the graph, which shows the two quantities rising together, and reaching the right verdict from a false reading of the data is not the reason the mark is for; saying that strong positive correlation shows one quantity causes the other is the assumption the question exists to test, and no strength of correlation can establish cause; saying the points lie close to the line of best fit describes how strong the correlation is, and strength and cause are different matters entirely.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.