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) 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.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 10 — Method: work out the mean that can be found straight away, then use total = mean × number of values on the group of three to find the missing number. Working: the mean of 15 and 25 is (15 + 25) ÷ 2 = 40 ÷ 2 = 20, so the group of three must also have a mean of 20; three numbers with a mean of 20 have a total of 20 × 3 = 60, and 20 + 30 = 50 of that total is already accounted for, so x = 60 − 50 = 10. Answer: 10, and checking, (10 + 20 + 30) ÷ 3 = 20. The distractors: 20 comes from working out the mean the two groups share and writing that down as x; −10 comes from dividing the group of three by 2 instead of by 3, which gives x + 50 = 40; 70 comes from reading the total 15 + 25 = 40 as the mean of the pair, which sets the target total at 120 and leaves x = 70.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 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.
- (d) Only internet users reach the website; others are excluded. — Method: a sample is biased when it systematically leaves out part of the population, or systematically over-represents another part. Working: anyone without internet access, or who does not visit the council's website, has NO chance of being included — the sample is drawn only from internet-using residents, which is not the whole town. Saying too many people might respond because the survey is free confuses bias with sample size — bias is about who CAN be reached, not how many respond. Saying people might lie describes a different problem, response honesty, not who was sampled in the first place. Saying online surveys cannot be anonymous is not a reason connected to bias at all. A sample is biased when part of the population has no chance of being included, whatever the reason for that.
- (a) 1,400 and 1,240, so combine the samples for one estimate — Method: scale each sample up to the whole stock, then use the fact that a larger sample gives a more reliable estimate than a smaller one. Working: the first sample gives 35 ÷ 50 = 0.7 and 0.7 × 2,000 = 1,400 paperbacks; the second gives 31 ÷ 50 = 0.62 and 0.62 × 2,000 = 1,240 paperbacks. Two random samples of the same size are expected to differ a little, so neither estimate is wrong. Putting the two together gives 35 + 31 = 66 paperbacks in 100 books, and 66 ÷ 100 = 0.66 with 0.66 × 2,000 = 1,320, an estimate resting on twice as many books as either volunteer checked. Answer: 1,400 and 1,240, so combine the samples for one estimate. The distractors: keeping 1,400 because it is larger picks an estimate by its size, when both samples held 50 books and neither has a stronger claim; saying a volunteer must have miscounted assumes two random samples ought to agree exactly, which is precisely what random sampling does not promise; 1,750 and 1,550 come from 35 × 50 = 1,750 and 31 × 50 = 1,550, multiplying each count by the size of the sample instead of scaling by 2,000 ÷ 50.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.