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) No, the mode here is the lowest value of the nine — Method: an average is meant to stand for the data as a whole, so test any proposed average by asking how many values it sits near. Working: the value 4 appears three times and every other count appears once, so 4 is indeed the mode. But those three hours are the quiet ones at the start of the day, and the other six counts run from 11 up to 25; putting the nine counts in order, the middle one is the fifth, which is 13. So the mode sits at the very bottom of the data, with six of the nine hours far above it. Answer: no, because the mode here is the lowest value of the nine, so it describes the quiet opening hours rather than a typical hour. The distractors: saying the mode can only be used when no value repeats reverses the definition, since a mode exists only because a value does repeat; saying the mode is the value that occurs most often is a correct definition, but being the commonest value does not make a value typical when it lies at one end of the data; saying the mode is the best average for any list of numbers ignores the fact that mean, median and mode each describe a population well in different circumstances.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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) The mean, because every value counts towards it, so 100 pulls it from 7 up to about 20.3. — Method: work each measure out before the extra value is added and again afterwards, then compare the size of the two changes. Working: before, the six values total 42, so the mean is 42 ÷ 6 = 7, and the middle pair 6 and 8 give a median of (6 + 8) ÷ 2 = 7; after, the seven values total 142, so the mean is 142 ÷ 7 = 20.29 to 2 decimal places, while the median is now the 4th of the seven ordered values, which is 8; the mean has moved by about 13.3 and the median by 1. Answer: the mean, because every value counts towards it, so 100 pulls it from 7 up to about 20.3 — this is why the median is often preferred when a data set contains an outlier. The distractors: the reply that the mean rises by 100 adds the extra value to the mean instead of adding it to the total; the reply that the median moves to 12 takes the largest of the original values as the new middle instead of counting to the 4th of the seven values; the reply about even and odd counts quotes a rule that does not exist, since the median moved because a very large value was added, not because the count of values changed.
- (a) 1.5 — Method: with an even number of values the median is the mean of the two middle values, which for 12 values are the 6th and the 7th once the data are in order. Working: the results are already in order, and 12 ÷ 2 = 6, so the middle pair are the 6th value, 1, and the 7th value, 2; the median is (1 + 2) ÷ 2 = 1.5. Answer: 1.5 brothers and sisters. The distractors: 1 comes from reading the 6th value and stopping there instead of averaging the middle pair; 2 comes from working out the mean, 24 ÷ 12, instead of the median; 6 comes from working out the range, 6 − 0, which measures spread rather than centre.
- (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.
- (b) 5 ≤ m < 10 — Method: with 60 values the median is the 60 ÷ 2 = 30th value in order, so build a running total until it first reaches 30. Working: the running totals are 22 after the first class, 22 + 20 = 42 after the second, 51 after the third, 56 after the fourth and 60 after the fifth; the 30th parcel is past 22 but not past 42, so it lies in the second class. Answer: the median lies in the class 5 ≤ m < 10. The distractors: 0 ≤ m < 5 comes from giving the class with the greatest frequency, 22, which is the modal class and not the median class; 10 ≤ m < 20 comes from choosing the middle class in the list of five instead of counting to the middle value; 20 ≤ m < 30 comes from halving the range of the data, 50 ÷ 2 = 25, and giving the class that contains 25 kg rather than the class that contains the 30th parcel.
- (c) Yes — £80 is above the boundary, £78 — Method: a value counts as an outlier when it lies more than 1.5 times the interquartile range beyond the nearer quartile; here that means checking it against upper quartile + 1.5 × interquartile range. Working: the interquartile range is 42 − 18 = 24. 1.5 × 24 = 36, and 42 + 36 = 78, so any saving above £78 is an outlier. Amara saved £80, and 80 is greater than 78. Answer: yes, Amara's saving is an outlier, because £80 is above the outlier boundary, £78. Watch how you build the boundary and what you compare it with: adding the two quartiles instead of subtracting them, 42 + 18 = 60, gives an interquartile range three times too big, and 42 + 1.5 × 60 = 42 + 90 = 132 puts the boundary so far out that £80 wrongly looks ordinary; comparing £80 with the upper quartile alone, £42, checks only that it lies in the top quarter of the data, which every value above £42 does, not that it lies unusually far beyond it; and adding the interquartile range on once instead of one and a half times, 42 + 24 = 66, uses the wrong multiplier, even though £80 still happens to clear that lower boundary too.
- (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) 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.
- (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) The modal size, 9, bought by more customers than any other — Method: work out both averages from the frequencies, then choose the one the shop can act on. Working: for the mean, multiply each size by the number of pairs sold at it and add: 6 × 4 + 7 × 5 + 8 × 8 + 9 × 13 + 10 × 10 = 340, and 340 ÷ 40 = 8.5, so the mean size is 8.5. The largest frequency is 13, which belongs to size 9, so the modal size is 9. The mean 8.5 is a size no customer in the record asked for, so 40 pairs of it would sit unsold, while 13 of the 40 customers wanted size 9, more than wanted any other size. Answer: the modal size, 9, bought by more customers than any other. The distractors: the mean size 8.5 does take account of all 40 pairs, but a mean of sizes is a summary figure and not a size the month's customers were buying; the mean size 8 comes from averaging the five sizes on sale, 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10 = 40 and 40 ÷ 5 = 8, which ignores how many pairs were sold at each size and so treats the 4 pairs of size 6 as equal in weight to the 13 pairs of size 9; the range 4 comes from 10 − 6 and measures spread, so it says how wide a set of sizes the shop must stock, not which size to stock most of.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.