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) 40 — Method: the mean is the total divided by how many values there are, so rearranging gives total = mean × number of values. Working: the mean is 8 and there are 5 numbers, so the total is 8 × 5 = 40. Answer: 40, and checking, 40 ÷ 5 = 8, which is the mean given. The distractors: 13 comes from adding the mean and the count, 8 + 5, instead of multiplying them; 1.6 comes from dividing the mean by the count, 8 ÷ 5, which reverses the relationship; 8 comes from quoting the mean itself as the total, which is only true when there is a single number.
- (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.
- (c) 75 — Method: the number in a class is the area of its bar, frequency density × class width, so work out the frequency of each class that lies at or above 10 minutes and add them. Working: the class 10 ≤ t < 25 is 15 minutes wide with a frequency density of 3.2, giving 3.2 × 15 = 48 members; the class 25 ≤ t < 55 is 30 minutes wide with a frequency density of 0.9, giving 0.9 × 30 = 27 members; the total charged is 48 + 27 = 75. Answer: 75 members pay the extra charge. The distractors: 4.1 comes from adding the two frequency densities, 3.2 + 0.9, as though each height were a count; 93 comes from including the class 0 ≤ t < 10 as well, 1.8 × 10 = 18 added to 48 and 27, which charges every member; 27 comes from using only the class 25 ≤ t < 55 and forgetting that 10 ≤ t < 25 is also at or above 10 minutes.
- (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.
- (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%.
- (d) 1100 — Method: to combine two samples of different sizes, add the faulty counts together and add the sample sizes together before scaling up, rather than treating the two samples separately. Working: the combined sample found 34 + 21 = 55 scratched cases out of 100 + 50 = 150 cases checked, a proportion of 55 ÷ 150. Applying that proportion to the week's production of 3,000 gives an estimate of 55 ÷ 150 × 3000 = 1100 scratched cases. Averaging the two shifts' proportions instead of combining their totals, (34 ÷ 100 + 21 ÷ 50) ÷ 2 = 0.38, gives 0.38 × 3000 = 1140 — this treats the two samples as equally weighted even though Shift A checked twice as many cases as Shift B. Using only Shift A's sample, 34 ÷ 100 × 3000 = 1020, ignores Shift B's cases completely. Using only Shift B's sample, 21 ÷ 50 × 3000 = 1260, ignores Shift A's cases completely. When two samples are different sizes, combine their totals before finding the proportion — do not average the two proportions, and do not use only one shift's sample.
- (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.
- (a) A vertical line chart (discrete numerical data) — The number of pets is discrete numerical data — whole-number values such as 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 — recorded for one variable, so a vertical line chart is the chart specified for this kind of data. A bar chart is used for categorical data, such as favourite colour, not numerical values counted like this. A pie chart shows proportions of a whole and does not show the frequency of each separate value. A scatter graph compares two different variables against each other, and only one variable, the number of pets, is recorded here.
- (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.
- (a) 30 — Method: an outlier is a value that lies far away from the pattern set by the rest of the data, so compare each value with the group the others form. Working: five of the counts, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11, lie within 6 of one another and the steps between them are 2, 1, 1 and 2; the remaining count of 30 is 19 above the nearest of them, so it is the value that does not belong to the pattern. Answer: 30. The distractors: 5 comes from picking the smallest value, on the idea that the odd one out must be at the bottom of the list; 11 comes from ordering the data and stopping one value short, taking the largest of the counts that sit close together; 8.5 comes from working out the median, (8 + 9) ÷ 2, and giving a measure of centre where a value standing apart was asked for.
- (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.
- (a) 1.24 — Method: for data given as a frequency table, the mean is Σfx ÷ Σf — multiply each value by its frequency, add the results, then divide by the total frequency. Working: 0 × 6 = 0. 1 × 10 = 10. 2 × 6 = 12. 3 × 3 = 9. So Σfx = 0 + 10 + 12 + 9 = 31. The total frequency is Σf = 6 + 10 + 6 + 3 = 25. Mean = 31 ÷ 25 = 1.24 siblings. Averaging the frequency column itself, (6 + 10 + 6 + 3) ÷ 4 = 6.25, mixes up the frequencies with the values they belong to. Writing down 1, the number of siblings with the highest frequency, gives the mode, not the mean. Writing down 31 stops after finding Σfx and forgets to divide by the total frequency, 25. Always divide Σfx by Σf — never stop at the top of the fraction.
- (c) Route 2, because its interquartile range is smaller — Method: for a journey where turning up on time matters, what matters is not the typical (median) time but how predictable it is — a smaller interquartile range means the middle half of journeys cluster closer together. Working: Route 1's median, 34 minutes, is in fact lower than Route 2's, 41 minutes, so Route 1 is faster on average; but Route 1's interquartile range, 22 minutes, is far larger than Route 2's, 6 minutes, so Route 1's times are much less predictable. Answer: Priya should choose Route 2, because its interquartile range is smaller, even though it is slower on average. Watch which statistic answers the question actually asked: Route 1 does not have the smaller interquartile range, Route 2 does, so picking Route 1 for that reason misreads the table; Route 1's median genuinely is the lower one, but a lower median answers 'which is faster', not 'which is more reliable'; and Route 2's median is not the lower one, so that claim about Route 2 is simply false.
- (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.
- (b) 74 marks — Method: the two groups are different sizes, so their means cannot simply be averaged — rebuild each group's total mark, add the totals and divide by all 50 pupils. Working: Group A scored 20 × 80 = 1600 marks and Group B scored 30 × 70 = 2100 marks, giving 1600 + 2100 = 3700 marks altogether, so the overall mean is 3700 ÷ 50 = 74 marks. Answer: 74 marks, which sits nearer to 70 than to 80 because the larger group scored 70. The distractors: 75 marks comes from averaging the two group means, (80 + 70) ÷ 2, as though the groups were the same size; 76 marks comes from attaching each mean to the other group's size, (20 × 70 + 30 × 80) ÷ 50; 150 marks comes from adding the two means together and never dividing at all.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.