You are on page 1of 20

# GCSE Maths Statistics Coursework

Mark Howson

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

The Data 2

The Questions 2

Hypotheses 2

The Plan 2

Samples 4

Outliers 9

Hypothesis One: Students who watch more TV will weigh more on average 10

## Evaluation of Strategy and Results 20

- 1/20 -
Introduction

I have been given some secondary data on the school population of Mayﬁeld High School in
Manchester. The population contains 851 Key Stage 3 students and 371 Key Stage 4 students, for
a total of 1183 students. I have been asked to investigate the data and ask questions on it so I
can set several hypotheses.

The Data

The data I have been given is a mix of female and male data and includes the following
headings:

Qualitive Data
• Year Group
• Gender
• Means of Getting to School

Discrete Data
• Age in Years and Months
• Average Number of Hours of TV Watched
• No. of Pets
• Weight

The Questions

From the data it would be interesting to see if there are any relationships between weight and
TV watched, no. of pets, age and gender as I would like to see if the amount of activity
completed eﬀects the weight of a person.

Hypotheses

I believe I will ﬁnd that people who weigh less and are a comparable age will generally watch
less TV. This is because if people are not watching TV, they are more likely to be doing more
strenuous activities. Furthermore, I believe people who weigh less will have more pets, because
pets need to be walked in many circumstances. Also, I believe that people who weigh less will
walk to school, as that means they are getting more exercise every morning and evening. I will
compare the male results to the female results to see if there is a correlation between the
diﬀerent genders. The press generally says that the obesity problem is more apparent with boys,
so it will be interesting to see if males, on average, weigh more or less than females. I also believe
that age will eﬀect this, so I will take a sample of 60 KS3 year old males, 60 KS4 year old females,
60 KS4 Males and 60 KS4 Females. I believe that I will ﬁnd in general females will weigh less than
males of a comparable age.

The Plan

To help me ensure I investigate these hypotheses to the best of my ability, I have written a plan.
First, I will need to sample the population to reduce the number of data samples and make the
project easier to do (this will also be an accurate sample of the population assuming there is not
too much skew in the data). I will take a random sample of:

## • 30 KS3 Males with pets

• 30 KS3 Females with pets

- 2/20 -
• 30 KS4 Males with pets
• 30 KS4 Females with pets

## • 30 KS3 Males without pets

• 30 KS3 Females without pets
• 30 KS4 Males without pets
• 30 KS4 Females without pets

To do this, I will need to split the data into with pets and without pets, and then into male and
female groups. The data is already split into KS3 and KS4 groups. When I have the data sorted
into the relevant groups (strata), I will then use a random number generator to generate 30
random numbers for each group, to collate with the row numbers on the Excel spreadsheet. This
type of sampling gives everyone an equal chance of being chosen.

These random samples will then be imported into another Excel spreadsheet which will be used
as a working spreadsheet. The samples will be exported to a .csv ﬁle, ready for import into
Autograph.

Then, I will ensure that the data has no outliers using a standard calculation, in which I will ﬁnd
values 1.5x the interquartile range below the lower quartile, and also above the upper quartile.
Any values outside this range can be considered outliers, and will be excluded. They will not be
replaced unless a signiﬁcant proportion (10% or more) of the data set are outliers, as this should
not make a signiﬁcant change to the data.

To investigate the hypotheses I will use a scatter graph to compare hours of TV watched with
weight, and if I ﬁnd correlation I will draw a line of best ﬁt and calculate the equation of the line
for each set of results to allow me to make predictions about my data. I will also create box and
whisker diagrams to directly compare the male and female data in both KS3 and KS4 to prove
that females will weigh less than males in general.

I shall prove that both KS3 Females and KS4 students weigh less than their male counterparts,
and that overall females at the school weigh less than males, also.

## • The range of the data for males and females

• Whether there is more variation in males or females
• The Upper and Lower Quartiles of the data
• The Median of the data

I will then do the same for people with pets, and then compare the results for people with pets,
to the results for people without pets in each category, as well as taking results from a variety of
other categories.

I will then calculate the average weight of people with each method of transport and plot a
variety of graphs. I will calculate the standard deviation to show the spread of values for each
method of transport, this will help to show how much weight varies, and distinguish where there
is, and isn't, a real diﬀerence.

## I will ﬁnish by evaluating the diﬀerence in male and female weights.

- 3/20 -
When I have done all of this I will make conclusions on the above statistics, and evaluate my
work.

Samples

## KS3 Males without Pets

Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Male 170 60 Car 0
Male 15 58 Car 0
Male 7 53 Car 0
Male 20 70 Combination 0
Male 10 40 Bus 0
Male 15 60 Walk 0
Male 14 57 Tram 0
Male 10 48 Tram 0
Male 7 40 Bus 0
Male 3 57 Tram 0
Male 24 31 Tram 0
Male 35 55 Bus 0
Male 20 38 Car 0
Male 5 48 Tram 0
Male 10 52 Car 0
Male 11 51 Bus 0
Male 15 57 Car 0
Male 17 47 Bus 0
Male 31 51 Bus 0
Male 69 46 Bus 0
Male 10 40 Bus 0
Male 26 70 Walk 0
Male 7 43 Walk 0
Male 15 50 Tram 0
Male 13 60 Bus 0
Male 3 49 Tram 0
Male 16 48 Tram 0
Male 28 38 Bus 0
Male 7 38 Walk 0
Male 28 29 Tram 0

## KS3 Females without Pets

Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Female 2 50 Bus 0
Female 22 57 Car 0
Female 28 53 Car 0
Female 5 46 Walk 0
Female 13 57 Bus 0
Female 14 65 Walk 0
Female 14 44 Walk 0
Female 26 60 Car 0
Female 14 47 Tram 0
- 4/20 -
Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Female 16 55 Bus 0
Female 26 36 Walk 0
Female 14 44 Walk 0
Female 8 47 Tram 0
Female 12 45 Bus 0
Female 17 56 Walk 0
Female 100 57 Car 0
Female 9 48 Bus 0
Female 35 40 Walk 0
Female 16 42 Car 0
Female 22 39 Walk 0
Female 26 52 Car 0
Female 14 40 Walk 0
Female 39 48 Walk 0
Female 12 52 Bus 0
Female 15 58 Bus 0
Female 32 57 Walk 0
Female 14 46 Tram 0
Female 13 45 Bus 0
Female 10 47 Tram 0
Female 14 38 Tram 0

## KS3 Males with Pets

Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Male 20 48 Bus 2
Male 20 42 Bus 1
Male 21 45 Walk 2
Male 20 52 Tram 1
Male 8 42 Bus 5
Male 14 44 Walk 6
Male 13 68 Bus 1
Male 14 42 Bus 3
Male 19 48 Walk 2
Male 22 67 Bus 2
Male 8 59 Walk 1
Male 20 59 Car 3
Male 21 55 Bus 2
Male 40 51 Bus 1
Male 12 68 Car 1
Male 14 51 Bus 2
Male 24 56 Bus 1
Male 20 47 Bus 2
Male 20 50 Bus 2
Male 13 59 Walk 1
Male 16 44 Bus 1
Male 14 46 Tram 4
Male 32 50 Car 3
Male 20 50 Walk 2
Male 17 47 Bus 6
Male 17 62 Car 1
Male 4 40 Bus 1
Male 20 42 Bus 3
Male 30 49 Bus 3
- 5/20 -
Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Male 24 52 Walk 2

## KS3 Females with Pets

Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Female 10 42 Car 2
Female 10 50 Tram 10
Female 2 59 Tram 4
Female 25 51 Tram 2
Female 35 54 Combination 3
Female 42 42 Bus 3
Female 13 40 Bus 6
Female 6 50 Tram 1
Female 18 35 Walk 3
Female 14 45 Bus 4
Female 40 29 Bus 1
Female 6 62 Bus 1
Female 21 48 Car 3
Female 14 66 Bus 2
Female 100 43 Walk 10
Female 4 43 Tram 1
Female 21 49 Walk 1
Female 15 49 Bus 2
Female 12 53 Walk 3
Female 24 38 Walk 2
Female 15 40 Bus 2
Female 17 54 Walk 6
Female 35 52 Bus 2
Female 21 48 Car 2
Female 6 47 Bus 2
Female 21 48 Car 3
Female 11 58 Walk 2
Female 10 52 Bus 1
Female 10 57 Bus 1
Female 8 37 Bus 4

## KS4 Males without Pets

Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Male 42 60 Bus 0
Male 16 70 Walk 0
Male 2 70 Tram 0
Male 17 60 Bus 0
Male 6 56 Car 0
Male 19 50 Tram 0
Male 31 66 Bus 0
Male 20 77 Tram 0
Male 13 65 Walk 0
Male 10 57 Car 0
Male 48 52 Walk 0
Male 48 52 Walk 0
Male 7 56 Bus 0
Male 16 56 Bus 0

- 6/20 -
Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Male 21 40 Bus 0
Male 20 38 Bus 0
Male 30 5 Walk 0
Male 20 50 Walk 0
Male 30 54 Bike 0
Male 40 72 Walk 0
Male 40 72 Walk 0
Male 4 72 Car 0
Male 40 63 Walk 0
Male 40 63 Walk 0
Male 17 59 Walk 0
Male 2 54 Bus 0
Male 17 93 Tram 0
Male 14 86 Tram 0
Male 7 52 Car 0
Male 10 50 Combination 0

## KS4 Females without Pets

Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Female 16 45 Car 0
Female 26 56 Bus 0
Female 28 36 Tram 0
Female 26 60 Car 0
Female 26 56 Bus 0
Female 70 51 Walk 0
Female 3 56 Car 0
Female 9 48 Bus 0
Female 70 51 Walk 0
Female 9 48 Bus 0
Female 7 54 Tram 0
Female 36 54 Car 0
Female 36 54 Combination 0
Female 20 55 Walk 0
Female 2 52 Walk 0
Female 14 54 Car 0
Female 21 54 Car 0
Female 25 48 Bus 0
Female 5 45 Walk 0
Female 6 60 Tram 0
Female 6 60 Tram 0
Female 56 45 Walk 0
Female 17 54 Combination 0
Female 5 45 Tram 0
Female 14 48 Walk 0
Female 26 36 Walk 0
Female 28 50 Walk 0
Female 20 50 Walk 0
Female 12 45 Bus 0
Female 6 48 Bus 0

## KS4 Males with Pets

- 7/20 -
Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Male 18 50 Bus 3
Male 50 56 Walk 1
Male 7 72 Car 1
Male 18 67 Bus 1
Male 22 49 Walk 5
Male 12 68 Bus 1
Male 27 51 Tram 1
Male 14 45 Bus 2
Male 12 62 Bus 2
Male 7 50 Bus 1
Male 10 80 Bike 7
Male 21 45 Bus 19
Male 4 57 Walk 2
Male 15 64 Walk 1
Male 35 58 Bus 3
Male 190 9 Walk 6
Male 20 40 Walk 3
Male 13 64 Bus 2
Male 20 68 Bus 7
Male 3 50 Tram 1
Male 3 64 Combination 2
Male 12 60 Tram 1
Male 1 72 Bike 4
Male 7 64 Walk 2
Male 3 62 Car 4
Male 25 72 Walk 2
Male 13 72 Bus 1
Male 20 50 Train 1
Male 15 50 Bike 2
Male 20 60 Tram 3

## KS4 Females with Pets

Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Female 24 65 Bus 1
Female 14 48 Bus 3
Female 100 50 Combination 5
Female 14 58 Tram 1
Female 15 55 Car 2
Female 15 58 Bus 1
Female 5 55 Walk 11
Female 17 54 Bus 3
Female 20 65 Car 7
Female 7 63 Combination 1
Female 12 50 Bus 3
Female 21 54 Bus 8
Female 22 52 Combination 3
Female 7 45 Bus 5
Female 30 44 Tram 12
Female 10 51 Bus 4
Female 15 55 Bus 2
Female 45 50 Bus 2
Female 10 51 Car 2
Female 26 42 Walk 6
- 8/20 -
Gender Hours of TV watched per week Weight Means of Travel No. of Pets
Female 26 48 Bus 12
Female 13 52 Tram 1
Female 40 38 Walk 3
Female 10 45 Bus 1
Female 7 55 Walk 2
Female 25 45 Tram 2
Female 14 60 Walk 2
Female 6 74 Bus 7
Female 13 48 Bus 5
Female 7 66 Walk 15

Outliers

Outliers are data ‘far away’ from most of the data. One way to deﬁne outliers is as numbers 1.5x
above the higher quartile or below the lower quartile. I have highlighted all the data that falls
into one of these two categories in red, above (with exception to a few outliers in orange,
explained below) and showed the calculations below.

## Median Lower Quartile Upper Quartile Lowest Allowed Highest Allowed

Male KS3 No Pets Weight 49.5 40 57 20 85.5
Male KS3 No Pets TV 15 8.5 25 4.25 37.5
Female KS3 No Pets Weight 47.5 44 56.5 22 84.75
Female KS3 No Pets TV 14 12 26 6 39
Male KS3 Pets Weight 50 44 57.5 22 86.25
Male KS3 Pets TV 20 14 21 7 31.5
Female KS3 Pets Weight 48.5 42 54 21 81
Female KS3 Pets TV 14.5 10 24 5 36
Male KS4 No Pets Weight 58 52 70 26 105
Male KS4 No Pets TV 18 10 40 5 60
Female KS4 No Pets Weight 51 45 55 22.5 82.5
Female KS4 No Pets TV 18.5 6 28 3 42
Male KS4 Pets Weight 60 50 68 25 102
Male KS4 Pets TV 14.5 7 21 3.5 31.5
Female KS4 Pets Weight 52 48 58 24 87
Female KS4 Pets TV 14.5 10 25 5 37.5

I have elected to keep the outliers marked in orange in the sample, as they are still statistically
plausible outliers. For TV consumption, 70 hours a week is extreme, and hence unplausible,
however around 50 hours a week of TV consumption is very plausible. The highest ‘allowed’
outlier for TV was under 60 hours a week, which works out at television consumption of 8.5
hours a day, which is possible for someone, considering the amount of free time for television
consumption at weekends, and that they may watch TV while doing other things.

The most outrageous ﬁgure stood at 190 hours of television per week. This would calculate to
27.4 hours a day, an impossibility. A more modest outlier of 100 hours of television per week
would still calculate to 14 and a quarter hours a day of television, which is impossible owing to
school commitments, unless the student elected not to sleep or not to attend school regularly.

- 9/20 -
For weight, there were no unreasonably high outliers, and all outliers were excluded. Most of the
outliers were unreasonably low. This could be a typographical error on the part of the student, or
a choice not to reveal their weight for the survey, and instead type in a bogus ﬁgure.

Looking at the lower and upper quartiles of the data, we can see patterns beginning to emerge
to support the hypothesis that people with more pets weigh less. This is demonstrated, for
example, in the blue highlighted upper quartile ranges for KS3 students.

It is, however, important to note that not all of the data currently supports the conclusion, and
hence the graphs produced could result in weaker evidence for this hypothesis than would have
been preferable.

Hypothesis One: Students who watch more TV will weigh more on average

The ﬁrst hypothesis states that students who watch more hours of TV per week will weigh more
on average. To further analyze the hypothesis and come to more conclusions, I have split my
analysis into more acute categories supported by a variety of graphs.

For Key Stage 3 Male Students, the Hypothesis is shown to be true, although not particularly
dramatically. Indeed, a lot of the lighter students are shown signiﬁcantly below the line of best ﬁt
on the graph, and the diﬀerence between the lowest, and highest, point on the line of best ﬁt is
only around two kilograms. As there is no clear correlation in the data, I can calculate the
correlation co-eﬃcient of the data, which will give me a calculation showing me how strong the
correlation of the data is, and whether it is a negative or positive correlation.

Below is a table showing what the numbers of the correlation coeﬃcient suggest:

- 10/20 -
Correlation Negative Positive

## Large -1.0 to -0.5 0.5 to 1.0

The correlation co-eﬃcient of the data stands at 0.03237. As this is below 0.1, we can see that
this data has no real correlation, conﬁrming our previous expectations regarding the graph.

This demonstrates that KS3 male students TV consumption does not produce a statistically
profound diﬀerence to their weights, despite what might be expected. In Key Stage 4 Male
Students (over the page), the line of best ﬁt suggests that students actually weigh less based on
hours of TV viewed, however, the lightest students all watch less than 30 hours of TV a week,
with the lightest student watching 20 hours of TV per week, and weighing just under 40kg.

The heaviest student weighs around 93kg, however, they watch around 17 hours of television,
again showing a lack of statistical correlation for the ﬁrst hypothesis.

The correlation co-eﬃcient of the data stands at -0.08927. As this is below -0.1, we can see that
this data has no real correlation, however, there is a stronger correlation to be found in this
graph than the KS3 graph.

Looking at the KS3 female weight and TV hours information, this signiﬁcant lack of proof for
hypothesis one continues, with the lightest student watching just under 40 hours of television
per week.

- 11/20 -
The same dramatic line of best ﬁt suggesting students weigh less if they watch more hours of
television per week is shown in Key Stage Four female results, with one of the lighter students
watching over 50 hours of television per week, however, other light students are all over the
graph, suggesting this information is purely coincidental.

One exception to the downward best of ﬁt line can be seen by taking the data for all students
with pets across KS3 and KS4, which shows that students who watch less TV weigh less.

- 12/20 -
However, this data is likely to be quite coincidental, and could simply be a result of students with
pets watching less TV as they have to spend more time looking after their pets. The all students
graph repeats the weak negative correlation in the line of best ﬁt, and again, the heaviest
students do not watch as much TV as some of the lighter students. The correlation co-eﬃcient of
the data stands at -0.848, once again showing no real diﬀerence in the data, making the data
quite inconclusive.

- 13/20 -
To put the information into context, the below graph utilizes mean and standard deviation bars,
and a dot plot, to demonstrate the averages of the various data.

The mean average of the data is signiﬁcantly higher than the mode (where most of the data falls)
in both cases. Taking the mode data, we would expect the average student to watch less TV and
weigh less than the mean averages suggest. A larger sample than that of over 100 students used
could produce a more accurate conclusion, but my conclusion at this time for hypothesis one is
that it is incorrect.

The data does not suggest that students who watch less TV weigh less, instead suggesting that
they weigh more than those who watch more TV. However, I believe that in this case the
evidence provided is irrelevant and anecdotal in nature, as there is lots of data to work against
the lines of best ﬁt, and the negative correlations are weak at best.

The correlations shown are not strong enough to make any serious suggestions regarding this
ﬁrst hypothesis.

## Hypothesis Two: People with Pets will Weigh Less

I believe that people with pets will weigh less because pets need to be walked in many
circumstances, and in other circumstances, pets need to be cared for in other ways, for example
feeding them. This increased physical activity should result in lower weights overall for people
with pets.

- 14/20 -
The box plots above support the second hypothesis, showing a signiﬁcantly lower maximum
weight for people without pets, around 13kg lower. Furthermore, the median average weight
(shown by the centre bar of the box plot), is a couple of kilograms lower, while the lowest weight
remains the same.

Therefore, the graph proves that people with pets generally weigh less than those without,
although the interquartile range for people with pets is larger than that for people without
weights, suggesting that the correlation between owning pets and weights is weaker than one
might assume from the diﬀerence in maximum weight.

This can be further proven by using a dot plot to look at the mode values of the data. As can be
seen in the below data, the mode weight for people without pets is lower than the mode weight
for people with pets.

To conclude, Hypothesis Two is true, however there is a weak correlation between weight and
having pets, and there is no ‘real diﬀerence’ between the values. A real diﬀerence would require
the interquartile range of the box plots to not overlap.

Hypothesis Three: People who walk to school will weigh less than people who get to school via
some other method

People who walk to school will weigh less because they get more routine excersize during the
morning and evening by walking to and from school. This extra excersize could amount to
anything up to 5 hours of walking a week for people who live around half an hour from the
school, for those who live less far away, for example 10 minutes, they still walk for 100 minutes
per week that they wouldn’t if they went to school by car.

- 15/20 -
Calorie Lab shows that someone at our samples average weight of 52kg can burn 78 kilograms
per hour of walking, which would convert to:

## Time Calories Burned

10 minutes 13
100 minutes (a week for a person with a 10 minute walk) 130
300 minutes (a week for a person with a 30 minute walk) 390
400 minutes (a month for a person with a 30 minute walk) 520
1200 minutes (a month for a person with a 30 minute walk) 1560
5200 minutes (a year for a person with a 10 minute walk) 6760
15600 minutes (a year for a person with a 30 minute walk) 20280

20,280 calories is the equivalent of the number of calories in 4.1kg of Twix, so it’s a signiﬁcant
amount of calories to burn. Relating to the sample group, the below shows a breakdown of the
number of people who walk, compared to those who do not:

## Walks to School Another Method

200

150 172

100

50
59

0
Method of Transport to School

This shows me that I have a large enough population of people who walk to school for the
graphs I create for this hypothesis to be statistically accurate. I created some box and whisker
diagrams to prove the hypothesis.

- 16/20 -
From the diagram, I can say a number of the things. Firstly, it is important to note that the
heaviest pupils by far do not walk to school, with a diﬀerence of around 20kg between those
who do walk to school, and those who do not. However, this could be based on just one person,
and as such, I shall produce a stem and leaf diagram to collect more information, and see if this is
the case. The stem and leaf diagram will show me the spread of the data, from which I can create
a histogram for additional analysis.

0
Key
1 2 | 9 = 29
2 99

3 1678888

4 0000000222222234455555555555667777777888888888888888999

5 0000000000000001111111122222222233444444444455555666666677777778888899

6 00000000022223445566778888

7 00222247

8 06

9 3

The stem and leaf diagram shows that the data is spread fairly evenly in a pyramid structure,
which suggests that the earlier analysis of the 20kg diﬀerence was fair and accurate. This can also
be shown as a histogram with a frequency polygon, to further illustrate the even spread of the
data, and continue to verify the results.

- 17/20 -
This again shows the ‘pyramid’ spread of the data. The information for people who walk to school
displays a far tighter range than that of the people who don’t walk to school, however, the mean
value is marginally higher. The lower quartile value, however, is signiﬁcantly lower.

Together, this means that the information to support hypothesis three is inconclusive, and it is
impossible from the sample to say if the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. If a larger sample had
been taken, a more deﬁnitive answer could have been made.

## Hypothesis Four: Girls will weigh less, on average, than boys

I believe that girls will weigh more on average than boys due to the coverage of the obesity crisis
in the media being more attributed towards boys. I accept that KS4 students will generally be
taller than KS3 students, and hence weigh more, so I will look at key stage 3 weights separately
to key stage 4 weights.

Furthermore, I appreciate that height may aﬀect weight, but that is beyond the scope of the
hypothesis, and hence will not be tested. I will use box plots to compare the data and analyse it
to form a conclusion regarding the hypothesis.

I am hoping to see an increased diﬀerence in this ﬁnal hypothesis to the others, and prove that I
chose an appropriate sample by producing conclusive results

- 18/20 -
Upon creating the graph, we can see that the hypothesis is most deﬁnitely true, perhaps more so
for KS4 students than KS3 students. While some male KS3 students weigh less than girls, they are
outside of the interquartile range.

In the case of KS3 students, the mean average for females is signiﬁcantly lower than that of
males, as is the maximum weight for the student, the diﬀerence is even more signiﬁcant for KS4
students, with the maximum weight diﬀering by just under 20kg, and the minimum weight also
being lower for females.

- 19/20 -
By looking at the totals of male and female students, we can see that the mean data value is
lower in females than males, and that the highest weight is smaller in females, resulting in less
‘spread’ for the data. There is a strong positive skew to the female data, and a weak positive skew
to the male data.

Overall, the data from the sample positively proves the hypothesis, so it can be stated fairly that
on average, secondary school age men weigh less than women of an equivalent age.

## Evaluation of Strategy and Results

I will now evaluate my work on this statistics project, focusing on the software used, and each of
the hypotheses, and how pleased I am, or am not, with the results that came from the sample
group. I will look at where I could have improved my work.

I am pleased with my decision to use the ‘Autograph 3.2’ graphing software to create the graphs
for my statistics courswork, as I feel it has helped to streamline the production of my graphs and
results by creating them automatically, and doing all the calculations for the data. Samples and
data where originally selected using a combination of Microsoft Excel and Apple Numbers ’08,
which was a good combination. Excel was more advanced at creating the sample, and Numbers
presented it better for inclusion in the ﬁnal documentation.

If I were to repeat the process, I would take larger samples, of around 50 students from each
category, and I would automatically remove the ridiculous ﬁgures, such as ‘170 hours of
television per week’, before taking samples, as this would make the outliers checks and eventual
graphs and analysis more focused and accurate, based more on ‘actual’ results, rather than
spending time removing ridiculous results obviously inputted into the survey by students as a
joke.

Regarding my ﬁrst hypothesis, I was glad with my decision to use scatter graphs with a line of
best ﬁt. The line of best ﬁt made for a good way to analyse the trends in the data, and see how
the data progressed as TV hours increased. I was interested to see that there was no obvious
correlation between the TV hours and weight of the students in the sample.

My second hypothesis focused on the theory that people with pets will weigh more. I found that
while the heaviest people did not own pets, there was no obvious correlation between people
with pets, and people without pets. This was interesting, as you would expect that the additional
activity would result in reduced weights.

The third hypothesis suggested that people who walked to school would weigh less. While the
sample was tighter, the evidence was not conclusive. I would have liked to see what would have
happened to this data with a larger sample.

The fourth hypothesis was proven more than adequately with the elected sample size, proving
that a sample size of 30 students is adequate for statistically accurate information in many cases.
I was most pleased with this hypothesis.

Overall, I am happy with the results I have had from my statistics coursework, despite some of
the hypotheses not being proven. I feel that the ﬁrst hypothesis regarding TV viewing would
never be properly proven, and instead the line of best ﬁt would ‘ﬂatten’ with a larger sample.

- 20/20 -