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
- (c) 20 ≤ h < 40 — Method: with 80 values the lower quartile is the 80 ÷ 4 = 20th value in order, so build a running total until it first reaches 20. Working: the running totals are 14, then 14 + 22 = 36, then 52, then 80; the 20th plant is past 14 but not past 36, so it lies in the second class. Answer: the lower quartile lies in the class 20 ≤ h < 40. The distractors: 0 ≤ h < 20 comes from believing that the bottom quarter of the data must all sit in the first class, when that class holds only 14 of the 80 plants; 40 ≤ h < 50 comes from using the position 80 ÷ 2 = 40 and so locating the median rather than the lower quartile; 50 ≤ h < 80 comes from counting 20 plants down from the tallest instead of up from the shortest, which locates the upper quartile at the 60th plant.
- (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.
- (a) Leeds has a higher median and a greater range than York. — In order, Leeds's temperatures are 14, 16, 18, 19 and 23, so the median is the middle value, 18, and the range is 23 − 14 = 9. York's temperatures in order are 15, 17, 17, 18 and 18, so the median is 17, and the range is 18 − 15 = 3. Since 18 is higher than 17, and 9 is greater than 3, Leeds has both the higher median and the greater range. Choosing 'Leeds has a higher median but a smaller range than York' gets the median comparison right but the range comparison backwards — Leeds's range of 9 is actually greater than York's range of 3. Choosing 'York has a higher median and a greater range than Leeds' reverses both comparisons. Choosing 'York has a higher median but a smaller range than Leeds' reverses the median comparison; York's median of 17 is lower than Leeds's 18, even though it is correct that York's range is the smaller one.
- (b) 60 — Method: for n ordered values, the upper quartile sits at position 3(n + 1) ÷ 4, counting from the smallest. Working: n + 1 = 11 + 1 = 12; 3 × 12 = 36 and 36 ÷ 4 = 9, so the upper quartile is the 9th value in the list 40, 42, 45, 47, 50, 52, 55, 58, 60, 63, 65, which is 60. Answer: the upper quartile is 60 seconds. Watch which quartile you find: counting to the 6th value gives the median, 52, not the upper quartile; using 3 × 11 = 33 and 33 ÷ 4 = 8.25 without adding 1 to n first, then rounding down, reaches the 8th value, 58, not the 9th; and counting to the 3rd value uses the lower quartile's position, 45, the wrong end of the list.
- (b) 120, unreliable — x = 25 is outside 1 to 12 — The line of best fit is y = 4x + 20. 4 × 25 = 100, and 100 + 20 = 120, so the estimate is y = 120. But x = 25 lies far outside the plotted range of 1 to 12 years, so this is an extrapolation, and the estimate is not reliable. Reaching 100 instead of 120 comes from 4 × 25 = 100 with the intercept of 20 left out — still correctly flagged as unreliable, but the wrong value. Calling the estimate reliable simply because it was calculated correctly, giving 120, wrongly assumes that a correct calculation is automatically trustworthy, ignoring that x = 25 lies far beyond the data actually collected. Reaching 68, from 4 × 12 = 48 and 48 + 20 = 68, substitutes x = 12, the top of the plotted range, instead of the assistant's actual x = 25, and wrongly calls that reliable because 12 lies inside the range.
- (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) £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) The class with times from 10 up to 20 — Method: to find the median class from a histogram, first turn each bar's frequency density into a frequency using density × class width, build up the cumulative frequency, and find the first class whose cumulative frequency reaches or passes n ÷ 2. Working: the four classes have widths 10, 10, 20 and 20, so their frequencies are 5 × 10 = 50, 2 × 10 = 20, 1.5 × 20 = 30 and 1 × 20 = 20, which add to the 120 visitors stated. The median sits at position 120 ÷ 2 = 60. The cumulative frequency is 50 after the first class and 50 + 20 = 70 after the second, so the 60th visitor is reached during the second class. Answer: the median lies in the class 10 ≤ t < 20. Watch which class each shortcut lands on: the tallest bar belongs to the first class, with the highest frequency density, 5 — but the tallest bar shows where visitors are packed most densely, not where the middle visitor falls, and picking it lands one class too early, at 0 ≤ t < 10; taking half of the total TIME span instead of half of the total NUMBER of visitors, 60 minutes ÷ 2 = 30 minutes, lands in the class 20 ≤ t < 40, confusing a value on the horizontal axis with a position in the data; and using the full 120 visitors as the target position, rather than 120 ÷ 2 = 60, reaches all the way to the last class, 40 ≤ t < 60, treating the whole data set's size as though it were the position of a single middle value.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (a) Minutes a candle has burned and length remaining — As a candle burns for longer, less of it remains, so these two variables move in opposite directions as one increases — that is negative correlation. A pupil's shoe size generally increases as they get older, so age and shoe size show positive correlation, not negative, since both rise together. A football team's shirt colour is not a numerical quantity linked to how many matches it wins, so shirt colour and number of wins show no correlation at all. The number of letters in a pupil's name has no real connection to their ability in maths, so that pair also shows no correlation.
- (b) £11.00 — 1.5 × 6 = 9, and 9 + 2 = 11, so the estimated cost is £11.00. Choosing £9.00 stops after 1.5 × 6 = 9 and forgets to add the £2. Choosing £12.00 adds the mass and the constant first and then multiplies: 6 + 2 = 8, and 8 × 1.5 = 12.00. Choosing £13.50 swaps the gradient and the intercept, using y = 2x + 1.5 instead: 2 × 6 = 12, and 12 + 1.5 = 13.50.
- (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.