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
- (d) 20 — 0.4x + 1 = 9, so 0.4x = 9 − 1 = 8, and 8 ÷ 0.4 = 20, so 20 sessions are needed. Choosing 23 divides 9 by 0.4 without first subtracting the 1: 9 ÷ 0.4 = 22.5, rounded up to 23. Choosing 25 subtracts the wrong way, adding the 1 instead of taking it away: 9 + 1 = 10, and 10 ÷ 0.4 = 25. Choosing 2 misplaces the decimal point in the gradient, dividing by 4 instead of by 0.4: 8 ÷ 4 = 2.
- (d) An outlier from the damaged wing, not the trend. — That bird's point lies a long way from the rising trend followed by every other bird, and its low wingspan is explained by the damaged wing rather than by its age — it is an outlier caused by an unusual factor, not part of the general relationship between age and wingspan, so it should not be used when drawing the line of best fit. Saying every point must be used ignores that an outlier caused by a separate, identifiable factor can rightly be set aside. Saying it shows no correlation ignores that the other 19 points do show a clear rising trend; one outlier does not remove that. Saying it proves the line is inaccurate confuses one unusual bird with a fault in the line itself, when the line correctly describes the trend followed by the rest of the data.
- (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) 38, and fairly confident, as 12 °C is inside the range — Method: substitute the forecast temperature into the equation of the line of best fit, then judge the prediction by where that temperature sits among the data the line was drawn from. Working: putting x = 12 into y = −3x + 74 gives −3 × 12 + 74 = 38, so the line predicts 38 hot chocolates. The recorded temperatures run from 4 °C to 18 °C, and 12 °C lies inside that interval, so this is interpolation, the safer kind of prediction. Answer: 38, and fairly confident, as 12 °C is inside the range; the owner should still expect the true figure to differ a little, since the points only lie near the line and not on it. The distractors: being completely certain treats a line of best fit as a rule that fixes each day's sales, when it describes a trend that individual days depart from; saying 12 °C is outside the range misreads the interval 4 °C to 18 °C, and the wrong warning would be attached to a sound prediction; 110 comes from −3 × 12 being taken as +36, giving 36 + 74 = 110, which loses the negative gradient and so predicts that a warm day sells more hot chocolate than a cold one.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 210 — 350 − 150 = 200. 200 ÷ 10 = 20, so the gradient is 20. Using the point (5, 150): 20 × 5 = 100, so 150 − 100 = 50 is the intercept, giving the line y = 20x + 50. At x = 8: 20 × 8 = 160, and 160 + 50 = 210, so the estimated number of visitors is 210. Choosing 160 stops after 20 × 8 = 160 and forgets to add the intercept of 50. Choosing 250 comes from averaging the two given y-values: 150 + 350 = 500, and 500 ÷ 2 = 250, instead of using the line's equation. Choosing 240 assumes the visitors are directly proportional to the hours of sunshine using the first point, 150 × 8 ÷ 5 = 240, which ignores that the line does not pass through the origin.
- (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) 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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.