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) 5/9 — Method: a bead cannot be two colours at once, so white and purple are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added over the common total. Working: there are 1 + 4 + 4 = 9 beads, so P(white) = 1/9 and P(purple) = 4/9; adding gives 1/9 + 4/9, and 1 + 4 = 5 ninths. Answer: 5/9. The distractors: 4/9 comes from giving the probability of a purple bead alone and forgetting to include the white one; 5/8 comes from counting 5 favourable beads but using 8 as the total, leaving the single white bead out of the count of the box; 5/18 comes from adding 1/9 and 4/9 by adding the denominators as well as the numerators.
(c) 0.65 — Overrunning and not overrunning are exhaustive: between them they cover every outcome, so their probabilities sum to 1. Work out 1 − 0.35 = 0.65. Writing 0.35 again is the probability that the appointment overruns, not its complement — the subtraction was never done. Adding instead of subtracting gives 1 + 0.35 = 1.35, which cannot be a probability at all. Subtracting each digit from 10 instead of borrowing from the 1, so 10 − 3 = 7 tenths and 10 − 5 = 5 hundredths, gives 0.75.
(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) 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.
(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.
(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.
(b) 0.150 — The six scores are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1. The probability of not landing on 6 is 1 − 0.25 = 0.75, and this is shared equally between the other five scores, so each has probability 0.75 ÷ 5 = 0.150. Giving 0.750 as the answer stops after finding the probability of not landing on 6, without sharing it out between the five remaining scores. Dividing 0.75 by 6 instead of by 5 gives 0.125, wrongly including the score of 6 among the equally likely scores. Ignoring the bias completely and dividing 1 by all six scores gives 1 ÷ 6 = 0.167.
(b) 11/12 — Method: raining and not raining are the only two outcomes, so their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 12/12 gives 12/12 − 1/12, and only the numerators are subtracted, 12 − 1 = 11. Answer: 11/12, close to the right-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because rain is unlikely. The distractors: 1/12 comes from giving back the probability that it does rain; 1/11 comes from subtracting the 1 from the denominator instead of subtracting the fraction from 1; 11/11 comes from subtracting 1 from the numerator and from the denominator of 12/12 rather than from the numerator alone.
(d) 0.7 — Method: delayed and not delayed are the only two outcomes, so the two probabilities form an exhaustive set and add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: 1 − 0.3, written as 1.0 − 0.3 with the decimal points lined up. Answer: 0.7. The distractors: 0.3 comes from giving back the probability that the train is delayed instead of its complement; 0.97 comes from lining the decimal points up wrongly and working out 1.00 − 0.03; 0.5 comes from assuming that delayed and not delayed must be equally likely because there are only two outcomes.
(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) 8/52 — Method: a card cannot be an ace and a king at the same time, so the two events are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added, keeping the denominator the same. Working: P(ace) = 4/52 and P(king) = 4/52, so P(ace or king) = 4/52 + 4/52, and 4 + 4 = 8 fifty-seconds. Answer: 8/52. The distractors: 4/52 comes from giving the probability of just one of the two events and forgetting to add the other; 16/52 comes from multiplying the two counts, 4 × 4, instead of adding them; 1/52 comes from giving the probability of one particular named card rather than any of the eight.
(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.
(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.
(c) 11/20 — 'Red or white' combines two mutually exclusive events, so add their probabilities: 3/10 = 6/20 and 1/4 = 5/20, giving 6/20 + 5/20 = 11/20. Multiplying the two probabilities instead of adding them, 3/10 × 1/4, gives 3/40, which would be the probability of red and white together, not red or white — and a bead can't be both colours. Subtracting the sum from 1, 1 − 11/20 = 9/20, gives the probability of the bead being black instead of red or white. Converting 1/4 as 4/20 instead of 5/20 (dividing 20 by 4 but forgetting to scale the numerator) gives 6/20 + 4/20 = 1/2.
(a) 6.75% — Finishing, retiring and being disqualified are exhaustive, so the three percentages sum to 100%: 100% − 68.5% − 24.75% = 6.75%. Adding the two given percentages instead of subtracting them from 100% gives 68.5% + 24.75% = 93.25%, the combined probability of finishing or retiring, not of being disqualified. Subtracting only the retiring percentage from 100% and forgetting the finishing percentage gives 100% − 24.75% = 75.25%. Subtracting only the finishing percentage and forgetting the retiring percentage gives 100% − 68.5% = 31.50%.

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.