Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16
Relative frequency and the probability scale worksheet — GCSE Foundation
Fifteen questions on "relative frequency and the probability scale" — DfE statement P3. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.
Answer key: Relative frequency and the probability scale worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) 195 — The relative frequency from the trial is 52 ÷ 80 = 0.65, and the expected number of point-up landings in 300 drops is 0.65 × 300 = 195. Giving 52 as the answer reuses the original count from the 80-drop trial without scaling it up to 300 drops at all. Misreading 52 out of 80 as 52% and finding 52% of 300 gives 156. Finding the expected number of point-DOWN landings instead of point-up, using the relative frequency 28 ÷ 80 = 0.35, gives 0.35 × 300 = 105.
- (b) 40% — Method: a fraction becomes a percentage by scaling it so that its denominator is 100, or equivalently by dividing the numerator by the denominator and multiplying the decimal by 100. Working: 5 × 20 = 100, so the numerator is scaled by 20 as well, 2 × 20 = 40, giving 40/100; the same figure comes from 2 ÷ 5 = 0.4 and 0.4 × 100 = 40. Answer: 40%. The distractors: 20% comes from dividing 100 by the denominator alone, 100 ÷ 5 = 20, which is the percentage for 1/5 and never uses the numerator 2; 4% comes from finding the decimal 0.4 correctly and then writing the 4 down as the percentage instead of multiplying by 100; 2% comes from scaling only the denominator up to 100 and leaving the numerator as it was, giving 2/100.
- (b) Priya — The larger the number of trials, the closer a relative frequency tends to be to the true probability. Priya made 200 drops, more than Freya's 20, Malik's 50 or Tom's 80, so her relative frequency gives the best estimate. Freya's estimate is based on only 20 drops, the smallest sample, so it is the least reliable of the four. Malik's 50 drops and Tom's 80 drops are both larger than Freya's but still well short of Priya's 200.
- (c) 1/3 — Method: list the scores that satisfy the condition, count them and write that count over the total number of equally likely scores, then simplify. Working: the scores greater than 4 are 5 and 6, so 2 of the 6 equally likely scores qualify, giving 2/6. Answer: 2/6 cancels to 1/3. The distractors: 2/3 comes from giving the probability that the score is not greater than 4, the complement rather than the event asked for; 1/6 comes from giving the probability of one particular qualifying score; 1/2 comes from reading 'greater than 4' as '4 or more' and counting 4, 5 and 6, which gives 3/6.
- (b) 4 — With 150 rolls and probability 1/6 for each number, the expected count is 150 ÷ 6 = 25. Comparing each actual count with 25: 1 is 22 (3 below), 2 is 27 (2 above), 3 is 24 (1 below), 4 is 34 (9 above), 5 is 21 (4 below) and 6 is 22 (3 below). Number 4 is furthest above its expected count, so it is the most over-represented. Number 2 is also above its expected count, but by only 2, far less than 4's 9. Number 3's count of 24 is below the expected 25, so it is under-represented, not over. Number 6's count of 22 is also below the expected 25, so it too is under-represented.
- (c) No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6. — The theoretical probability of rolling a 6 on an ordinary dice is fixed at 1/6, worked out from the number of equally likely outcomes, and does not change however the dice is actually rolled. The relative frequency from this trial is 7/30, found from what happened in these particular 30 rolls. Since 7/30 and 1/6 are different numbers, the correct statement is 'No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6.' Assuming the two values must always match because they describe the same event gives 'Yes — relative frequency always equals theory.' Believing that an observed result redefines the theoretical probability gives 'Yes — the theoretical probability has now become 7/30.' Refusing to work out either value at all gives 'Neither can be found — 30 rolls is too few to tell', which ignores that both numbers CAN be calculated from the information given.
- (d) 75% — Method: count how many cards are not hearts, write that count over the total number of cards, cancel the fraction down and then turn it into a percentage. Working: 52 − 13 = 39 cards are not hearts, so the probability is 39/52; dividing the numerator and the denominator by 13 gives 3/4, and 3/4 = 0.75, so 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%, three quarters of the way along the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: 25% comes from giving the probability that the card is a heart, 13 out of 52, which cancels to 1/4; 50% comes from reading 'not a heart' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 39% comes from writing the count of 39 cards straight down as the percentage without comparing it with the 52 cards in the pack.
- (a) unlikely — 3/8 = 3 ÷ 8 = 0.375, which is between 0 and 0.5, so the probability is best described as unlikely. Rounding 3/8 loosely to 'about a half' without converting it properly leads to evens, which is wrong since 0.375 is noticeably below 0.5. Reading 3/8 as the complement and using 1 − 3/8 = 5/8 = 0.625 instead gives likely, but the question asks about the probability of 3/8 itself, not its complement. Flipping the fraction to 8/3 ≈ 2.67, which is impossible for a probability, and rounding it towards the top of the scale gives certain.
- (c) 5/8 — Method: the sections are all the same size, so every section is equally likely; count the sections that are not red and write that count over the total number of sections. Working: 8 − 3 = 5 sections are not red, and there are 8 sections altogether. Answer: 5/8, a value between 0 and 1 and a little above the halfway point of the scale. The distractors: 3/8 comes from giving the probability that the spinner does land on red; 5/11 comes from adding the 3 red sections to the 8 sections to make a total of 11 instead of using the 8 sections that exist; 1/2 comes from assuming that 'red' and 'not red' must be equally likely because there are only two possibilities.
- (b) likely — On the probability scale, 'certain' is reserved for a probability of exactly 1, and 'evens' describes a probability of exactly 0.5. A probability of 0.9 is high but not equal to 1, so the correct word is 'likely'. Choosing 'certain' treats a probability close to 1 as if it were exactly 1, which it is not. Choosing 'evens' misjudges 0.9 as being close to the midpoint of the scale, when it is close to the 'certain' end instead. Choosing 'unlikely' reads the scale the wrong way round, as if a high probability meant a low chance of happening.
- (d) unlikely and evens — The marked points are impossible (0), unlikely (0.25), evens (0.5) and certain (1). Since 0.25 < 0.3 < 0.5, the probability 0.3 lies between unlikely and evens. Choosing 'impossible and unlikely' treats 0.3 as below 0.25, which it is not. Choosing 'evens and certain' treats 0.3 as above 0.5, which it is not. Choosing 'impossible and evens' skips over the unlikely marker altogether, even though 0.3 is above it.
- (b) 57/100 — Pooling both trials: total heads = 24 + 33 = 57, total flips = 40 + 60 = 100, so the combined relative frequency is 57/100, which is already in its simplest form since 57 and 100 share no common factor. Averaging the two separate relative frequencies instead, (24/40 + 33/60) ÷ 2 = (0.6 + 0.55) ÷ 2 = 0.575 = 23/40, treats the two trials as equally weighted even though Ben made more flips, which is not correct. Using only Leah's data gives 24/40 = 3/5. Using only Ben's data gives 33/60 = 11/20.
- (d) 50% — Method: write the number of red cards over the total number of cards, then turn that fraction into a percentage by dividing and multiplying by 100. Working: the probability is 26/52; 26 ÷ 52 = 0.5 and 0.5 × 100 = 50. Answer: 50%, the exact middle of the 0 to 1 probability scale, which matches the fact that half the pack is red. The distractors: 26% comes from writing the number of red cards straight down as the percentage without dividing by the total; 25% comes from taking one of the four suits as the red ones and giving a quarter; 2% comes from dividing the wrong way round, 52 ÷ 26 = 2, and writing that as a percentage.
- (a) 952 — 68% = 0.68. The relative frequency from the survey applies to the new group of 1400 shoppers, so the expected number is 0.68 × 1400 = 952. Working out 1 − 0.68 = 0.32 and applying that instead, 0.32 × 1400 = 448, finds the number who have NOT used a self-checkout, not the number who have. Applying 68% to the original sample size of 250 instead of the new total of 1400 gives 0.68 × 250 = 170. Applying the complement percentage to the original sample size, 0.32 × 250 = 80, compounds both mistakes.
- (c) Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%. — Converting 11/32 to a decimal gives 11 ÷ 32 = 0.34375, which is greater than 34% (0.34), so Noah has the better save rate: 'Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%.' Comparing the raw numbers 34 and 11 directly, without converting the fraction to the same form, gives 'Elin — 34 is bigger than 11.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning a bigger value, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Noah — 32 is a bigger denominator.' Rounding 34.375% to 34% to the nearest whole percent hides the difference and gives 'Equal — both round to 34% to the nearest percent.'
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.