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
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) No, the range uses only the fastest and slowest time — Method: check what the range is built from, then look at what it leaves out. Working: both teams have a fastest time of 20 seconds and a slowest of 40 seconds, so both ranges are 40 − 20 = 20 seconds and Tomás has that part right. But the range is calculated from those two values alone. Six of Team A's seven times lie between 20 and 25 seconds, with a single time far out at 40; Team B is the other way round, with six of its seven times at 30 seconds or more and a single time far out at 20. So Team A bunches at the fast end and Team B at the slow end. The two patterns are quite different, and the range cannot see the difference because the five middle times never enter the calculation. Answer: no, because the range uses only the fastest and slowest time. The distractors: comparing the means answers a different question, since a mean measures position rather than spread, and two sets with the same spread can have different means; saying that equal ranges mean equal spread is the very assumption that fails here; saying that seven times each forces the spreads to match confuses the size of a data set with how its values are arranged inside it.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) A histogram, with frequency density up the vertical axis — Method: decide which diagram makes area stand for frequency, which is the property the question asks for. Working: on a histogram the vertical axis is frequency density, so the area of a bar is frequency density × class width, and that product is the frequency; this is exactly what is wanted, and it is what allows classes of unequal width to be shown fairly. Answer: a histogram, with frequency density up the vertical axis. The distractors: a bar chart plots frequency as the height, so with unequal widths a wide class would cover far more area than a narrow class holding the same number of batteries, and area would measure nothing; a cumulative frequency diagram plots running totals against upper class boundaries, so a point on it gives how many lie below a value rather than how many lie in a class; a pie chart shows each class as a share of the whole 300 and loses the class widths entirely, so no area on it is tied to a scale of hours.
- (b) 4 — The difference, Bristol minus Leeds, on each day is: Monday 4 − 3 = 1, Tuesday 4 − 5 = −1, Wednesday 6 − 2 = 4, Thursday 2 − 4 = −2. The greatest amount by which Bristol exceeded Leeds is 4 hours, on Wednesday. Choosing 1 takes Monday's smaller positive difference instead of the greatest one. Choosing 2 takes the size of Thursday's difference, but that is the amount by which Leeds exceeded Bristol, the opposite direction to the one asked for. Choosing 6 takes Bristol's raw figure on Wednesday without subtracting Leeds's 2 hours first.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 33 — Method: multiply the mean by the number of tests to get the total marks, then subtract the marks that are already known. Working: four tests with a mean of 29 give a total of 29 × 4 = 116 marks; the first three marks total 31 + 26 + 26 = 83; so the fourth mark is 116 − 83 = 33. Answer: 33, and checking, (31 + 26 + 26 + 33) ÷ 4 = 116 ÷ 4 = 29. The distractors: 116 comes from stopping at the total for all four tests; 29 comes from assuming the missing mark must be the mean itself; 4 comes from multiplying the mean by 3, the number of marks given, leaving 87 − 83 = 4.
- (b) 5.5 kg — Method: with an even number of values the median is the mean of the two middle values, taken once the data are in order of size. Working: the eight masses are already in order and 8 ÷ 2 = 4, so the middle pair are the 4th and 5th values, 5 kg and 6 kg; the median is (5 + 6) ÷ 2 = 5.5 kg. Answer: 5.5 kg. The distractors: 5 kg comes from reading the 4th value and stopping there instead of averaging the middle pair; 8 kg comes from working out the range, 11 − 3, which measures spread rather than centre; 4 kg comes from writing down the modal mass, the only value that occurs twice, instead of the median.
- (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.
- (c) 145 g — Method: find the position of the median from the total frequency, locate the class that contains it, then use linear interpolation inside that class, assuming the apples in it are spread evenly. Working: the median is the 100 ÷ 2 = 50th apple; the running totals are 10, then 10 + 30 = 40, then 40 + 40 = 80, so the 50th apple lies in the class 140 ≤ m < 160; it is the 50 − 40 = 10th of the 40 apples in that class, and the class is 20 g wide, so the median is 140 + (10 ÷ 40) × 20 = 140 + 5 = 145. Answer: an estimated median of 145 g. The distractors: 150 g comes from giving the midpoint of the class that contains the median instead of interpolating inside it; 140 g comes from stopping at the lower boundary of that class, which locates the class but not the value; 155 g comes from measuring the 5 g step down from the upper boundary, 160 − 5, instead of up from the lower boundary.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.