Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16

Probabilities of exhaustive events sum to one worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Fifteen questions on "probabilities of exhaustive events sum to one" — DfE statement P4. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.

VersionsA only A + B A + B + Csame questions, different order

AnswersQuestions only With answer key Key only

CalculatorMixed Non-calculator (Paper 1)Calculator (Papers 2 and 3)

New sheet

Answer key: Probabilities of exhaustive events sum to one worksheet — GCSE Foundation

Maths · GCSE Foundation · P4 · Probabilities of exhaustive events sum to one · 15 questions

MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk

(a) 0.8 — Method: the spinner cannot land on red and blue at the same time, so the two events are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added. Working: 0.3 + 0.5, lining the decimal points up. Answer: 0.8, which also tells you that the remaining colour, green, has probability 0.2 because the three must add to 1. The distractors: 0.2 comes from subtracting 0.3 from 0.5 instead of adding the two probabilities; 0.15 comes from multiplying 0.3 by 0.5 instead of adding them; 0.4 comes from finding the mean of 0.3 and 0.5 rather than their total.
(c) 0.2 — Let P(green) = x, so P(blue) = 2x. Red, blue, green and yellow are exhaustive: 0.05 + 0.35 + x + 2x = 1, so 0.4 + 3x = 1, giving 3x = 0.6 and x = 0.2. So P(green) = 0.2. Splitting the remaining 0.6 evenly between blue and green, ignoring the 2:1 ratio, gives 0.3. Working out x correctly but then reporting 2x, the probability of blue, gives 0.4. Stopping after finding that blue and green together account for 0.6, without dividing by the three equal shares of x, gives 0.6.
(d) No, because 3/8 + 5/12 + 1/6 = 23/24 — Using a common denominator of 24: 3/8 = 9/24, 5/12 = 10/24 and 1/6 = 4/24. Adding these numerators gives 9 + 10 + 4 = 23, so the three probabilities sum to 23/24, which is less than 1 — Zara is not correct. Adding the original numerators (3 + 5 + 1 = 9) over a denominator of 12 instead of converting each fraction properly gives 9/12 = 3/4, still less than 1 but the wrong fraction. Converting 1/6 to 5/24 instead of 4/24 (using the wrong scaling) makes the total 9/24 + 10/24 + 5/24 = 24/24 = 1, wrongly suggesting the probabilities are valid. Judging validity from the fact that each individual fraction lies between 0 and 1 ignores that an exhaustive set must sum to exactly 1, not merely contain valid individual values.
(a) 4/7 — Method: going away and not going away are the only two possibilities, so the two probabilities form an exhaustive set and add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 7/7 gives 7/7 − 3/7, and 7 − 3 = 4 sevenths. Answer: 4/7. The distractors: 3/7 comes from giving back the probability that the family do go away; 1/7 comes from taking the 1 in '1 − 3/7' as a numerator and writing it over the denominator 7; 1/2 comes from assuming that going away and not going away must be equally likely because there are only two possibilities.
(b) 3/4 — Method: a card either is a diamond or is not a diamond, so those two outcomes form an exhaustive set and their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: P(diamond) = 1/4, so P(not a diamond) = 1 − 1/4; writing 1 as 4/4 gives 4/4 − 1/4. Answer: 3/4. The distractors: 1/4 comes from giving back the probability that the card is a diamond instead of its complement; 1/2 comes from reading 'not a diamond' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 3/52 comes from doing the subtraction 4 − 1 = 3 on the suits but then writing that 3 over the 52 cards in the pack instead of over the 4 suits.
(c) 39.5% — Win, draw and lose are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 100%: 42% + 18.5% = 60.5% is the percentage that wins or draws. 100% − 60.5% = 39.5% is the percentage that neither wins nor draws. Adding 42% and 18.5% and stopping there, 60.5%, is the probability of winning or drawing, not of neither. Subtracting only the 42% from 100% gives 58.0%, ignoring the draw percentage. Subtracting only the 18.5% from 100% gives 81.5%, ignoring the win percentage.
(d) 5 — Being red and not being red are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of red is 1 − 0.8 = 0.2. The number of red counters is 0.2 × 25 = 5. Using 0.8 directly as the probability of red, without taking the complement, gives 0.8 × 25 = 20 — the number of counters that are NOT red. Sharing the 25 counters equally between the three colours, ignoring the given probability altogether, gives 25 ÷ 3 ≈ 8. Misreading the total as 20 counters instead of 25 gives 0.2 × 20 = 4.
(b) 70 — Saloon, estate and hatchback are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of a hatchback is 1 − 0.28 − 0.37 = 0.35. The number of hatchbacks is 0.35 × 200 = 70. Treating the SUM of the other two probabilities, 0.28 + 0.37 = 0.65, as the probability of a hatchback instead of its complement gives 0.65 × 200 = 130. Multiplying the correct probability, 0.35, by 100 instead of the 200 cars actually surveyed gives 35. Averaging the two given probabilities, (0.28 + 0.37) ÷ 2 = 0.325, instead of subtracting them from 1, and then multiplying by 200 gives 65.
(c) 24 — Silver, bronze and copper cover every counter, so their probabilities sum to 1: P(copper) = 1 − 1/2 − 1/8 = 3/8. Number of copper counters = 3/8 × 64 = 24. Multiplying the silver probability by 64 gives 32, the number of silver counters, not copper. Multiplying the bronze probability by 64 gives 8, the number of bronze counters. Adding the silver and bronze probabilities (1/2 + 1/8 = 5/8) and multiplying by 64 gives 40, the combined number of silver and bronze counters, not the copper count.
(a) 0.75 — Method: a ticket cannot win both a prize and a voucher, so the two events are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added. Working: 0.4 + 0.35, lining the decimal points up, gives 0.40 + 0.35. Answer: 0.75. The distractors: 0.25 comes from going one step too far and giving the probability that a ticket wins nothing, which is what is left when the total is taken from 1; 0.14 comes from multiplying 0.4 by 0.35 instead of adding them; 0.05 comes from subtracting 0.35 from 0.4 instead of adding them.
(a) 0.54 — The four colours are exhaustive, so all four probabilities sum to 1: the probability of damson is 1 − 0.18 − 0.22 − 0.24 = 0.36. Amber and damson cannot both happen on one spin, so the probability of amber or damson is 0.18 + 0.36 = 0.54. Stopping after finding the probability of damson alone, without adding the probability of amber, gives 0.36. Adding the three given probabilities together, 0.18 + 0.22 + 0.24 = 0.64, and treating that total as the answer never finds the probability of damson at all. Subtracting only the probability of amber from 1, 1 − 0.18 = 0.82, ignores black, cyan and damson completely.
(a) 3/10 — Germinating and not germinating are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: 1 − 7/10 = 3/10. Writing 7/10 again gives the probability that the plant DOES germinate, not its complement. Putting the difference 10 − 7 = 3 over the original numerator instead of the original denominator gives 3/7. Inverting the correct answer, swapping its numerator and denominator, gives 10/3, which is impossible as a probability since it is greater than 1.
(d) 21 — Pink, gold and grey cover every counter, so their probabilities sum to 1: P(grey) = 1 − 0.2 − 0.45 = 0.35. Number of grey counters = 0.35 × 60 = 21. Multiplying the pink probability by 60 gives 12, the number of pink counters, not grey. Multiplying the gold probability by 60 gives 27, the number of gold counters. Adding 0.2 and 0.45 without subtracting from 1 gives 0.65, and 0.65 × 60 = 39 counts the pink and gold counters together, not the grey ones.
(a) No — the three probabilities sum to 1.10, over 1. — Winning, drawing and losing are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, so their probabilities must sum to exactly 1. Adding Freddie's three values gives 0.45 + 0.3 + 0.35 = 1.10, which is more than 1, so his probabilities cannot all be correct: 'No — the three probabilities sum to 1.10, over 1.' Checking only that each value lies between 0 and 1 accepts them as 'Yes — each probability lies between 0 and 1' without ever adding the three together. Judging by which outcome sounds most likely leads to 'Yes — winning has the highest single probability', which never checks the total either. Noting that a runner cannot win, draw and lose at once, and treating that alone as enough, gives 'Yes — the three outcomes are mutually exclusive' — but mutually exclusive outcomes that are also exhaustive must still sum to 1, and 1.10 does not.
(b) 0.45 — Winning a toy, winning a sweet and winning neither are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1. P(toy) + P(sweet) = 0.15 + 0.4 = 0.55. P(neither) = 1 − 0.55 = 0.45. Adding 0.15 and 0.4 and stopping there gives 0.55, which is the probability of winning a toy or a sweet, not of winning neither. Subtracting only 0.15 from 1 gives 0.85, and ignores the sweet probability entirely. Subtracting only 0.4 from 1 gives 0.6, and ignores the toy probability entirely.

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.