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) 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.
- (a) £16,000 — Method: first find the quarter with the highest sales figure, then subtract quarter 1's sales from it — remembering that every figure is given in THOUSANDS of pounds. Working: the highest sales figure is quarter 2, at £34,000 (34 thousand pounds). The increase from quarter 1 is £34,000 − £18,000 = £16,000. Giving £34,000 reads off the highest sales figure on its own, without subtracting quarter 1's sales — that is the highest quarter's total, not the increase. Giving £12,000 uses quarter 3's sales, 30, the SECOND-highest figure, instead of quarter 2's 34, the actual highest — 30 − 18 = 12, but quarter 3 is not the quarter with the highest sales. Giving £16 gets the subtraction right, 34 − 18 = 16, but forgets that every figure in the question is in thousands of pounds, so the increase is £16,000, not £16. Always identify the correct quarter FIRST, and always check the units the numbers are given in before writing your final answer.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) Full-time workers, as most are at work at that time — Method: a sample is biased when the method of contact makes part of the population much less likely to be reached, so test each group against where its members actually are between 10 am and 2 pm on a weekday, and test each stated reason against the facts. Working: those hours are the middle of the working day, so people in full-time employment are at work and not beside a landline telephone, while people who are retired and people who are unemployed are far more likely to be at home and are reached at the usual rate; the method therefore collects far fewer replies from full-time workers than their share of the adult population the council is consulting. Answer: full-time workers, as most are at work at that time. The distractors: the reply naming retired people rests on the false claim that most retired people are at work in the daytime, when in fact a daytime call reaches them more easily than anyone; the reply naming unemployed people rests on the false claim that they are out during the day, when they too are among the easiest people to reach by a daytime call; the reply naming children rests on the false claim that children are at home at 11 am on a Tuesday, when they are at school and so are not reached by the call at all, and school-age children are in any case not the adults whose views the council is collecting.
- (a) 1.6 — Method: on a histogram the height of a bar is the frequency density, and frequency density = frequency ÷ class width. Working: the class 15 ≤ t < 30 runs from 15 to 30, so its width is 30 − 15 = 15 minutes; the frequency is 24, so the frequency density is 24 ÷ 15 = 1.6. Answer: 1.6 people per minute. The distractors: 360 comes from multiplying the frequency by the class width, 24 × 15, which uses the area rule backwards — area gives the frequency, so the frequency must be divided by the width to give the height; 0.625 comes from dividing the class width by the frequency, 15 ÷ 24, reversing the formula; 0.8 comes from dividing by the upper class boundary, 24 ÷ 30, instead of by the width of the class.
- (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.
- (c) 22 kg — Method: multiply the mean by the number of parcels to rebuild the total mass, then subtract the masses that are known. Working: four parcels with a mean mass of 17 kg have a total mass of 17 × 4 = 68 kg; the three known parcels total 12 + 16 + 18 = 46 kg; so the fourth parcel has mass 68 − 46 = 22 kg. Answer: 22 kg. The distractors: 68 kg comes from stopping at the total mass of all four parcels; 17 kg comes from assuming the missing parcel must have the mean mass; 5 kg comes from multiplying the mean by 3, the number of parcels whose mass is given, leaving 51 − 46 = 5.
- (d) Route 1, as its times vary by 6 minutes rather than 20 — Method: work out an average and a measure of spread for each route, then decide which matters to a commuter who must arrive on time every day. Working: for Route 1, 22 + 23 + 24 + 24 + 25 + 25 + 26 + 26 + 27 + 28 = 250 and 250 ÷ 10 = 25, so the mean is 25 minutes, and the range is 28 − 22 = 6 minutes. For Route 2, 18 + 19 + 20 + 20 + 21 + 22 + 26 + 30 + 36 + 38 = 250 and 250 ÷ 10 = 25, so the mean is also 25 minutes, but the range is 38 − 18 = 20 minutes. The means give no reason to prefer either route; the spreads do, because a commuter who must never be late has to allow for the worst day, which is 28 minutes on Route 1 and 38 minutes on Route 2. Answer: Route 1, as its times vary by 6 minutes rather than 20. The distractors: saying Route 2 has the lower mean assumes that its quicker-looking early times must pull the average down, when both routes total 250 minutes over the ten days; choosing Route 2 for its fastest journey of 18 minutes judges a route by its best day, and the commuter has to survive its worst; saying either route will do uses the equal means and ignores the spread altogether, which is the one thing that separates the two routes.
- (c) 0.5 per gram — Method: turn the two known bars into frequencies using area, subtract from the total to find how many letters are left, then divide that frequency by the width of the last class to get its height. Working: the first bar covers 50 g at a frequency density of 1.2, giving 1.2 × 50 = 60 letters, and the second covers 50 g at 1.8, giving 1.8 × 50 = 90 letters; together that is 60 + 90 = 150 letters, so 200 − 150 = 50 letters remain; the class 100 ≤ m < 200 is 100 g wide, so its frequency density is 50 ÷ 100 = 0.5 per gram. Answer: 0.5 per gram. The distractors: 0.25 per gram comes from dividing the remaining 50 letters by the upper class boundary, 200, instead of by the class width of 100; 2 per gram comes from dividing the class width by the frequency, 100 ÷ 50, reversing the formula; 1.4 per gram comes from subtracting only the first bar's 60 letters, leaving 140, and then dividing by 100.
- (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.
- (b) A person's shoe size and their favourite colour — A person's shoe size is not linked to which colour they prefer, so these two show no correlation. The other three pairs are all genuinely correlated: distance travelled and fuel used rise together, which is positive correlation; hours of revision and test score generally rise together, which is also positive correlation; and as outdoor temperature rises, fewer woolly hats are sold, which is negative correlation. Negative correlation is still a real relationship between two variables — it is not the same thing as no relationship at all, so the temperature and hats pair is not the answer to this 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.