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) 69 — Method: multiply the mean by the number of values to find the total, then subtract the total of the known values. Working: the total of all five scores is 68 × 5 = 340. The total of the four known scores is 55 + 62 + 74 + 80 = 271. The fifth score is 340 − 271 = 69. Subtracting the other way round, 271 − 340 = −69, gives the right size answer with the wrong sign. Guessing that the missing score simply equals the mean, 68, ignores that the four known scores are not themselves centred on 68. Multiplying the mean by 4 instead of 5, 68 × 4 = 272, then 272 − 271 = 1, undercounts how many scores there are. Always multiply the mean by the TOTAL number of values before subtracting.
- (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.
- (c) Yes — with an estimate of 320, above the 250 limit. — Method: scale the sample proportion up to the whole batch to get an estimate, then compare that estimate with the 250 limit to reach a decision. Working: in the sample, 4 out of 50 boards are faulty, a proportion of 4 ÷ 50 = 0.08. Applying that proportion to the batch of 4,000 gives an estimate of 0.08 × 4000 = 320 faulty boards. Since 320 is more than 250, the factory should scrap the batch. Inverting the proportion, 50 ÷ 4 = 12.5, and treating that as a percentage of the batch, 12.5% × 4000 = 500, still gives 'yes' but from the wrong fraction, so it overstates the estimate. Comparing the raw number of faulty boards found in the sample, 4, directly with the 250 limit skips the scaling up to the batch altogether, and 4 is nowhere near 250, so that route wrongly says 'no'. Dividing the batch by the sample size, 4000 ÷ 50 = 80, finds how many samples of 50 fit into the batch but stops before multiplying by the 4 faulty boards found, so it also wrongly says 'no'. Always find the proportion in the sample first, scale it up to the whole batch, and only then compare the estimate with the limit given.
- (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.
- (a) The median, as the one very large wage does not move it — Method: an average describes a population well when it sits close to most of the values, so compare what each average does when one value lies far from the rest. Working: in order the wages are 420, 440, 460, 480 and 1,500, so the median is the third of the five, £460. The mean uses every wage: 420 + 440 + 460 + 480 + 1,500 = 3,300 and 3,300 ÷ 5 = 660, so the mean is £660. Four of the five people earn less than £660, and the nearest of those four wages is £180 below it, so £660 describes nobody at the garage; £460 sits inside the group of four similar wages. Answer: the median, as the one very large wage does not move it, while that same wage drags the mean £200 above the median. The distractors: saying the median is always larger than the mean is an invented rule, and here the median £460 is smaller than the mean £660; saying the mean is the only average that uses all five wages is true as far as it goes, but using a value and being dragged by it are the same thing when that value is £1,500; saying £660 lies between the smallest and largest wage is true of every mean ever calculated, so it proves nothing about whether this one is typical.
- (b) Treat them as outliers and check them before deciding — Method: a point lying a long way from the pattern the rest of the data make is called an outlier, and an outlier is investigated before anything is done with it, because it may be an error in the data or it may be a genuine but unusual case. Working: 48 of the 50 points lie close to the rising line of best fit, so the trend is set by those 48; the two remaining points do not follow it, so they are identified as outliers and checked — a mistake in measuring or recording would be corrected, while a genuine reading would be kept and reported. Answer: treat them as outliers and check them before deciding what to do with them. The distractors: deleting them at once assumes that every point far from the line must be an error, which throws away real data; moving the line so that it passes through them assumes a line of best fit must touch particular points, when it is drawn to follow all 50; taking them as proof that there is no correlation lets two points overturn the pattern that the other 48 agree on.
- (c) 72 — Method: on a histogram the frequency of a class is the area of its bar, so frequency = frequency density × class width. Working: the class 50 ≤ m < 80 has width 80 − 50 = 30 grams and a frequency density of 2.4 per gram, so the frequency is 2.4 × 30 = 72. Answer: 72 pebbles. The distractors: 192 comes from using the upper class boundary, 80, as the width, giving 2.4 × 80; 12.5 comes from dividing the width by the density, 30 ÷ 2.4, which reverses the area rule; 2.4 comes from reading the height of the bar as the frequency itself, the commonest mistake on histograms, where a height is a density and only an area is a count.
- (a) (30, 60) — Method: a cumulative frequency point is plotted at the upper boundary of its class, paired with the running total of all the frequencies up to and including that class. Working: the running totals are 7, then 7 + 19 = 26, then 26 + 34 = 60, then 60 + 40 = 100; the class 20 ≤ t < 30 has upper boundary 30, and the running total there is 60. Answer: the point for that class is plotted at 30 seconds against a cumulative frequency of 60. The distractors: (25, 60) comes from plotting at the class midpoint, which is what a frequency polygon uses and not what a cumulative frequency diagram uses; (30, 34) comes from plotting the class frequency, 34, rather than the running total; (20, 60) comes from plotting at the lower boundary of the class, which would claim that 60 calls took less than 20 seconds when only 26 did.
- (d) 300 pupils — Method: an estimate for a whole population is made by finding the proportion in the sample and applying that same proportion to the population. Working: in the sample 30 of the 50 pupils prefer sport, a proportion of 30 ÷ 50 = 0.6, and applying that proportion to the school gives 0.6 × 500 = 300 pupils. Answer: 300 pupils, and it is only an estimate, because a different random sample of 50 would give a slightly different figure. The distractors: 200 pupils comes from scaling up the 20 pupils in the sample who did not prefer sport, 20 × 10, which answers the opposite question; 150 pupils comes from reading 30 out of 50 as 30% and taking 30% of 500; 60 pupils comes from working out the proportion correctly as 60% and then writing the 60 down as a number of pupils instead of applying it to the 500.
- (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) 26 — Method: a line of best fit lets one quantity be predicted from the other, so the score is substituted into the equation of the line and the resulting inequality is solved for the number of hours. Working: a score of at least 80 means 2.5x + 15 ≥ 80; taking 15 from both sides gives 2.5x ≥ 65, and dividing both sides by 2.5 gives x ≥ 26, so the least whole number of hours is 26. Checking, 2.5 × 26 + 15 = 80, which does reach the target. Answer: 26 hours — and this is only an estimate, because a line of best fit predicts a trend rather than an individual result, and a prediction made outside the range of hours the pupils actually revised for would be an extrapolation and less reliable still. The distractors: 27 comes from reaching 26 and then rounding up again, although 26 hours already gives a score of exactly 80; 32 comes from 80 ÷ 2.5, which ignores the 15 in the equation of the line; 38 comes from (80 + 15) ÷ 2.5, that is from adding the 15 instead of subtracting it when rearranging.
- (d) 45 — Method: convert the angle into a fraction of the full circle, 360°, then apply that fraction to the total number of shoppers. Working: the card sector is 90° out of 360°, a fraction of 90 ÷ 360 = 0.25. Applying that fraction to the 180 shoppers gives 0.25 × 180 = 45 shoppers. Giving 90 states the angle itself, not a number of shoppers — the angle first has to be converted into a fraction. Using the remaining angle, 360 − 90 = 270°, and scaling that, 270 ÷ 360 × 180 = 135, finds the number who did NOT pay by card, not the number who did. Dividing 360 by 90, 360 ÷ 90 = 4, finds how many equal 90° sectors fit in the circle, a fact about the pie chart's shape, not about the shoppers at all. Always convert the angle to a fraction of 360° first, and apply that same fraction to the total number of people.
- (c) 18 — Method: for n ordered values, GCSE convention places the lower quartile at position (n + 1) ÷ 4, counting from the smallest value. Working: there are 11 marks, so n + 1 = 11 + 1 = 12 and 12 ÷ 4 = 3, so the lower quartile is the 3rd value in the ordered list 12, 15, 18, 21, 24, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 42, which is 18. Answer: the lower quartile is 18 marks. Watch the position you count to: dividing 11 ÷ 4 = 2.75 without adding 1 first, then rounding down, lands on the 2nd value, 15, not the 3rd; reaching for the middle of the whole list instead gives the median, 27, a different statistic; and averaging the 3rd and 4th values, 18 + 21 = 39 and 39 ÷ 2 = 19.5, borrows a method for an even split where it is not needed here.
- (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.
- (d) 25% — First find the number of fruit cakes: 80 − 34 − 26 = 20. Then write this as a percentage of the total: 20 ÷ 80 × 100 = 25%. Giving 20% comes from reporting the count of fruit cakes, 20, directly as a percentage, without dividing by the total of 80 first. Giving 32.5% computes the percentage of chocolate cakes instead of fruit cakes: 26 ÷ 80 × 100 = 32.5%. Giving 42.5% computes the percentage of sponge cakes instead of fruit cakes: 34 ÷ 80 × 100 = 42.5%.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.