• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  12. 12
    12
  13. 13
    13
  • Level: GCSE
  • Subject: Maths
  • Word count: 1988

Leaves Project

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Mathematics

YEAR 10 – LEAVES PROJECT

Hypotheses:

  • As the length increases so will the width.
  • The length and width will be greater in 2002 than 2001.
  • The spread of the length and width will be great in 2002 than in 2001.
  • The length and width of the leaves will follow a normal to almost normal distribution.
  • The length of leaf for which 10% of the leaves are longer will be greater in 2002.

From the data gathered on leaves, attached overleaf, I performed statistical techniques to attempt to prove my hypotheses.


Factors Effecting Results:

Time of year

From the data given we cannot be sure if the length and width of the leaves were collected at the same time of year each year.  Leaves collected at the beginning of the year would not yet have finished growing whereas leaves collected towards the end of year (i.e. autumn) would be at their largest.

Type of tree

We do not know if the data was collected from one specific type of tree or a mixture.

Age of tree

The age of the tree would affect the results because a younger tree would have smaller leaves whereas a more mature tree would have larger leaves.

Weather

We do not know if the leaves were collected during drought conditions, this would affect the size of leaf, as a tree would conserve water by not growing such large leaves.

Location

We do not know if the leaves were collected from the same location both years i.e. in the same wood.  We also do not know if the leaves were collected directly from the tree or picked up from the ground.

The above therefore leaves my results questionable.


Before we can analyse the data gathered on leaves, I have to identify if there are any anomalies.  I have highlighted these in yellow:

Length (mm) 2001

Width (mm) 2001

Length (mm) 2002

Width (mm) 2002

72

44

45

27

105

56

62

41

61

37

80

47

66

39

82

39

33

11

64

35

62

41

85

40

55

30

76

40

85

47

75

43

74

36

66

32

36

20

64

42

90

55

67

32

13

6

78

45

57

30

70

38

79

43

69

37

65

41

52

26

47

32

64

29

55

31

71

45

55

30

76

44

56

27

79

45

61

34

69

37

55

32

67

39

53

25

77

43

57

32

76

44

55

31

83

47

50

28

83

44

59

35

85

46

72

45

89

45

71

39

87

46

60

38

95

53

66

44

84

48

58

32

85

42

71

38

86

45

67

35

64

38

55

37

87

46

65

41

77

43

80

45

75

39

78

44

71

38

98

50

64

30

85

43

60

26

93

46

82

50

90

42

80

45

31

18

91

52

30

15

84

51

27

14

93

54

44

22

88

51

41

20

95

54

42

22

102

56

90

50

76

40

82

41

79

42

66

34

104

52

I think that these numbers are anomalies because they are either too small or too big to fit in with the consistency of the data.  I am going to discount these numbers from the rest of my work as including them would make my results unreliable or faulty.

Statistical Technique: Averages, Quartiles and Largest and Smallest

Numbers.

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

2001

2001

2002

2002

Mean

62.57

35.14

76.71

43.28

Median

61.00

36.00

77.00

44.00

LQ

55.00

30.00

69.00

39.00

UQ

72.00

43.00

85.00

46.50

IQR

17.00

13.00

16.00

7.50

Largest

98.00

56.00

102.00

56.00

Smallest

27.00

11.00

45.00

29.00

...read more.

Middle

The second scatter graph shows a stronger, positive correlation but there are still points being placed about the trendline.  Once again the formula for the trendline shows us that the trendline crosses the y-axis at +33.474mm showing that when the length is 0mm the width is +33.474mm, once again this is impossible.  The gradient of this scatter graph tells us that as the length increases by 1mm the width increases by 0.1278mm.

My first hypothesis was:

As the length increases so will the width.

According to the scatter graphs (shown over the page) this hypothesis has been proved as on both of the scatter graphs, the gradient shows us that as the length increases so does the width.


image01.png


image02.png


Statistical Technique: Box Plots.

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

Length (mm)

Width (mm)

2001

2001

2002

2002

Mean

62.57

35.14

76.71

43.28

Median

61.00

36.00

77.00

44.00

LQ

55.00

30.00

69.00

39.00

UQ

72.00

43.00

85.00

46.50

IQR

17.00

13.00

16.00

7.50

Largest

98.00

56.00

102.00

56.00

Smallest

27.00

11.00

45.00

29.00

Another way of showing this table is in the form of a “box and whisker” diagram, located overleaf.

My next hypothesis was:

The length and width will be greater in 2002 than 2001.

In order to attempt to prove this hypothesis I am going to look at the mean on the table above and also represent the data above in the form of box plots (shown overleaf).

...read more.

Conclusion

n="1">

5

6

7

5

0

0

5

6

Width

Freq.

Width < (mm)

Cumulative Freq.

20-29

4

29.5

4

30-39

7

39.5

11

40-49

20

49.5

31

50-59

14

59.5

45

60-69

4

69.5

49

Total =

49


Length 2002:

4

5

5

2

6

0

2

4

4

4

4

4

6

7

7

9

9

7

0

1

1

5

5

6

6

6

6

7

7

8

9

9

8

0

0

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

5

6

7

7

8

9

9

1

3

5

5

10

2

4

Length

Freq.

Length < (mm)

Cumulative Freq.

40-49

1

49.5

1

50-59

1

59.5

2

60-69

12

69.5

14

70-79

14

79.5

28

80-89

16

89.5

44

90-99

4

99.5

48

100-109

2

109.5

50

Total =

50

image04.png


Width 2002:

2

6

6

7

9

3

0

2

2

5

7

7

8

8

8

9

9

9

4

0

0

0

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

6

6

6

7

7

8

5

0

1

1

2

2

3

4

4

6

Width

Freq.

Width < (mm)

Cumulative Freq.

20-29

4

29.5

4

30-39

12

39.5

16

40-49

25

49.5

41

50-59

9

59.5

50

Total =

50

N.B. Graphs are not included for width as we are only looking at lengths in 2001 and 2002.

My final hypothesis was:

The length of leaf for which 10% of the leaves are longer will be greater in 2002.

In order to prove this, I have to find out 10% of the totals on both cumulative frequency graphs.  

For lengths in 2001, 4.9 and in 2002, 5.


image05.pngimage00.png

From the two graphs I can tell that the 10th percentile in 2001 is equal to 40 and in 2002 the 10th percentile is equal to 63.

From the above I can say that my hypothesis has been proven.

In conclusion I have proven 4 out of 5 of my hypotheses and disproved the remaining one.

Francesca Tate        10H        Mrs Smith

...read more.

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Comparing length of words in newspapers section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Comparing length of words in newspapers essays

  1. The Open Box Problem

    Rectangle Length 2 times Width I am now going to investigate the size of the cut-out square which will make an open box of the biggest volume for a rectangular piece of card. I am first going to use a rectangle where the length is twice the size of the width.

  2. Open Box Problem.

    Length cut from each side ( x ) Length of Base ( l ) Area of Base ( a ) Volume ( v ) 1cm 28 784 784 2cm 26 676 1352 3cm 24 576 1728 4cm 22 484 1936 5cm 20 400 2000 6cm 18 324 1944 7cm 16 156 1792 8cm 14 196 1568 9cm 12

  1. Tabloid Newspaper - The Sun statistical analysis.

    x 29.1 = 1059.24 Area of one page 'MBA' paper = 36.4 x 29.1 = 1059.24 Area of the whole newspaper = 2136.51 x 20 = 42730.2 = 2136.51 x 20 = 42730.2 = 1059.24 x 24 = 25420.76 = 1059.24 x 24 = 25420.76 = 1059.24 x 16 =

  2. Aim: having been presented with some data, to come up with a hypothesis and ...

    There also can be an element of being biased depending on what order they are initially put in. Although this can be a good way to select 30 people, I feel that using random sampling that this will be unbiased and therefore better for my investigation.

  1. Investigate if there is a relationship between the length and width of the leaves.

    I added all the widths and called them y. x=3522/35 x=100.63mm y=1709/35 y=48.83mm The formula for standard Deviation is: Measurement Total Mean Standard Deviation LENGTH 3522 100.63 19.99 WIDTH 1709 48.83 11.63 To check that these values are correct I shall group my data and estimate the mean and standard deviation.

  2. Does people's ability to estimate lengths improve after being shown an accurate length?

    This is because the distance is easier to work from in some circumstances such as the averages, but on the whole they basically mean the same thing. From this data I have created and analysed various statistical graphs and charts and entered my findings below.

  1. Data Handling Project

    It also needs to be long enough for it to be accurate therefore I decided to sample per newspaper 100 words. However then I considered the variation in word lengths in one newspaper, such as a sport section which would have different topics than the news or business section.

  2. Producing a Box

    you can see for your self, shape 2 has the highest volume. The more I look at these figures, the more I think that I have come up with a formula to find the volume quicker and easier than the method above.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work