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) 5/12 — Method: a win, a draw and a loss are the only outcomes and no two can happen together, so the three probabilities form an exhaustive set of mutually exclusive events and add to 1; add the two given probabilities, then subtract from 1. Working: 1/4 + 1/3 over the common denominator 12 is 3/12 + 4/12 = 7/12, and 1 − 7/12 = 12/12 − 7/12. Answer: 5/12. The distractors: 7/12 comes from stopping at the probability of a win or a draw and never subtracting from 1; 1/12 comes from subtracting the two given probabilities from each other, 1/3 − 1/4, instead of adding them and taking the total from 1; 5/7 comes from adding 1/4 and 1/3 by adding the numerators and the denominators to get 2/7 and then subtracting that from 1.
(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.
(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.
(a) 1/5 — Method: find the probability that the counter is black, then use the fact that an event and its complement add to 1. Working: there are 2 + 8 = 10 counters, so P(black) = 8/10 = 4/5; the complement is 1 − 4/5, and writing 1 as 5/5 gives 5/5 − 4/5. Answer: 1/5. The distractors: 4/5 comes from giving the probability that the counter is black instead of its complement; 1/2 comes from assuming the two colours are equally likely because there are only two of them; 1/4 comes from writing the 2 white counters over the 8 black counters rather than over all 10 counters.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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%.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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) 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.

Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.