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.
Answer key: Statistics worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) The means are equal, and Class B's marks are the more consistent because its range is smaller. — Method: comparing two distributions needs two things — a measure of average and a measure of spread — and each must be put into the context of the question. Working: both classes have a mean mark of 70, so on average the two classes scored the same; the range measures spread, and Class A's range of 30 marks is three times Class B's range of 10 marks, so Class B's marks sit closely around the mean while Class A's are far more spread out. Answer: the means are equal, and Class B's marks are the more consistent because its range is smaller. The distractors: the reply crediting Class A with more consistency reverses the meaning of the range, treating a larger range as tighter data when a larger range means more spread; the reply that Class A's mean mark is higher compares the wrong pair of figures, reading the range of 30 as an average; the reply that Class B's mean mark is higher reads the spread correctly but its claim about the means is false, since both means are 70.
- (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.
- (b) £1,000 — Wages take up 150° out of 360°, so the amount spent on wages is 150 ÷ 360 × 2400 = £1,000. Choosing £600 uses the repairs angle, 90°, instead of the wages angle: 90 ÷ 360 × 2400 = 600. Choosing £3,600 treats the angle in degrees as if it were a percentage, 150 ÷ 100 × 2400 = 3600, instead of dividing by 360°. Choosing £800 uses the angle for the 'other costs' sector, 360 − 90 − 150 = 120°, instead of the wages sector: 120 ÷ 360 × 2400 = 800.
- (c) 27 — Method: a frequency is the area of the part of the bar being asked about, so frequency = frequency density × the width of that part. Working: the part asked about runs from 20 to 35, so its width is 35 − 20 = 15 metres; the frequency density there is 1.8 per metre, so the estimate is 1.8 × 15 = 27. Answer: about 27 throws. The distractors: 72 comes from taking the whole bar, 1.8 × 40, and so counting every throw from 20 up to 60; 1.8 comes from reading the height of the bar as a frequency, when a height is a density and only an area is a count; 63 comes from using the upper value 35 as the width, 1.8 × 35, instead of the width 35 − 20.
- (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.
- (d) Both the mean and the range increase. — The original mean is 150 + 152 + 155 + 158 + 160 = 775, and 775 ÷ 5 = 155 cm; the original range is 160 − 150 = 10 cm. Including the new height of 170 cm gives a new total of 775 + 170 = 945, and 945 ÷ 6 = 157.5 cm, which is higher than 155 cm, and a new range of 170 − 150 = 20 cm, which is higher than 10 cm, so both the mean and the range increase. Saying the range stays the same ignores that 170 cm is a new, higher maximum than the old 160 cm. Saying the mean stays the same ignores that 170 cm is above the original mean of 155 cm, which pulls the average up. Saying both decrease is the opposite of what happens here.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) Equal means; Class A is more consistent, smaller range. — Method: when two data sets share a measure of location, compare a measure of spread to say more about consistency. Working: both classes have the same mean mark, 14, so on average they performed equally well. Class A has the smaller range, 6, so its marks are more tightly grouped around 14 than Class B's marks, which vary by as much as 14. So Class A's marks were more consistent, even though neither class did better on average. Saying Class B did better because it has the bigger range confuses a wide spread with a high score — a big range describes variability, not performance. Saying Class A did better because it has the smaller range makes the same mistake in the other direction: the two classes are tied on the mean, so neither one 'did better'. Saying the classes cannot be compared because their means are equal misses the whole point of also comparing the range. Always compare both an average AND a spread before describing two data sets — either one alone tells only half the story.
- (c) No — median £505 at A vs £510 at B. — Branch A's seven wages in order are £480, £495, £500, £505, £510, £515 and £1,200, so the median, the 4th value, is £505. Branch B's in order are £480, £490, £500, £510, £520, £530 and £540, so the median is £510. Since £505 is lower than £510, the median wage is not higher at Branch A, so the claim is not fairly supported. Choosing 'Yes — mean £600.71 at A vs £510 at B' uses the mean: 480 + 495 + 500 + 505 + 510 + 515 + 1200 = 4205, and 4205 ÷ 7 = 600.71, a figure pulled upward by the £1,200 outlier that does not represent a typical wage. Choosing 'Yes — median £515 at A vs £510 at B' miscounts the middle position, taking the 6th wage, £515, instead of the correct 4th value, £505. Choosing 'Yes — highest wage £1,200 at A vs £540 at B' compares the highest wage at each branch rather than a measure of the typical, or average, wage.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 31.5 — Method: to estimate the mean from a histogram, first turn each bar into a frequency (frequency density × class width), then use mean = Σ(frequency × midpoint) ÷ Σfrequency, with the midpoint standing in for every value in that class. Working: the four classes have widths 20, 10, 20 and 20, so their frequencies are 1 × 20 = 20, 3 × 10 = 30, 2 × 20 = 40 and 0.5 × 20 = 10, which do add to the 100 vehicles stated. Their midpoints are 10, 25, 40 and 60, so Σfx = 20 × 10 + 30 × 25 + 40 × 40 + 10 × 60 = 200 + 750 + 1600 + 600 = 3150, and the mean is 3150 ÷ 100 = 31.5. Answer: the estimated mean speed is 31.5 mph. Watch which numbers you treat as the frequencies and which as the values: using the frequency densities themselves as the frequencies, without multiplying by the class widths first, gives 1 × 10 + 3 × 25 + 2 × 40 + 0.5 × 60 = 195 spread over 1 + 3 + 2 + 0.5 = 6.5, and 195 ÷ 6.5 = 30, a mean built from the wrong 'frequencies' altogether; averaging the four midpoints on their own, (10 + 25 + 40 + 60) ÷ 4 = 33.75, ignores how many vehicles are actually in each class; and using each class's lower boundary in place of its midpoint, 20 × 0 + 30 × 20 + 40 × 30 + 10 × 50 = 2300 and 2300 ÷ 100 = 23, systematically underestimates every class by roughly half its width.
- (c) 40 minutes — Method: for grouped data, estimate the mean using the midpoint of each class — multiply each midpoint by its frequency, add the results, then divide by the total frequency. Working: the midpoints are 10, 30, 50 and 70 minutes. 10 × 5 = 50. 30 × 10 = 300. 50 × 10 = 500. 70 × 5 = 350. Σfx = 50 + 300 + 500 + 350 = 1200. Σf = 5 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 30. Estimated mean = 1200 ÷ 30 = 40 minutes. Using the upper boundary of each class instead of the midpoint — 20 × 5 = 100, 40 × 10 = 400, 60 × 10 = 600, 80 × 5 = 400 — gives a total of 1500 and an estimate of 1500 ÷ 30 = 50 minutes, too high because a boundary is not the middle of the class. Averaging the frequencies themselves, 5, 10, 10 and 5, ignores the times altogether and gives 7.5. Stopping after Σfx = 1200 without dividing by the total frequency gives a number far too large to be a time in minutes. Always find the midpoint of each class before multiplying by the frequency, and always divide by Σf at the end.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.