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
- (c) 0.5 — Method: count the favourable outcomes, write them over the total number of equally likely outcomes and then divide to turn the fraction into a decimal. Working: the odd scores are 1, 3 and 5, which is 3 of the 6 equally likely scores, so the probability is 3/6, and 3 ÷ 6 = 0.5. Answer: 0.5, the middle of the 0 to 1 probability scale. The distractors: 0.33 comes from listing only 3 and 5 as odd and working out 2 ÷ 6; 0.17 comes from giving the probability of one particular odd score, 1 ÷ 6; 0.3 comes from writing '3 out of 6' as 0.3, reading the 3 straight off as tenths instead of dividing.
- (b) 22.8% — Relative frequency as a percentage is the faulty count divided by the total, then multiplied by 100: 33 ÷ 145 × 100 = 22.76, which rounds to 22.8%. Giving 33.0% as the answer uses the frequency, 33, directly as a percentage without dividing by the total 145 at all. Rounding 22.76 down to 22.7% instead of up applies the wrong rounding direction at the first decimal place. Finding the relative frequency of the bulbs that were NOT faulty first: 145 − 33 = 112, and 112 ÷ 145 × 100 = 77.24, answers the opposite question and rounds to 77.2%.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.'
- (d) 315 — The relative frequency from the survey is 42 ÷ 120 = 0.35, so the expected number who prefer paper bags among 900 shoppers is 0.35 × 900 = 315. Giving 42 as the answer reuses the original survey count without scaling it up to 900 shoppers at all. Finding the expected number who prefer PLASTIC bags instead of paper, using the relative frequency 78 ÷ 120 = 0.65, gives 0.65 × 900 = 585. Using 1000 shoppers instead of the 900 actually stated gives 0.35 × 1000 = 350.
- (b) 1/2 — Method: for equally likely outcomes the probability is the number of favourable outcomes divided by the total number of outcomes, written in its simplest form. Working: the dice can show 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, so there are 6 equally likely scores; the even scores are 2, 4 and 6, which is 3 of them, giving 3/6. Answer: 3/6 cancels to 1/2, which sits halfway along the 0 to 1 probability scale. The distractors: 1/3 comes from listing only 2 and 4 as the even scores and writing 2/6; 1/6 comes from giving the probability of one particular even score, such as the 2, rather than any even score; 2/3 comes from listing the even numbers as 0, 2, 4 and 6 and writing 4/6, forgetting that a dice has no 0 on it.
- (a) 1/6 — Method: for equally likely outcomes, write the number of favourable outcomes over the total number of outcomes. Working: the dice has one face showing 6, and there are 6 equally likely faces in total, so the probability is 1 over 6. Answer: 1/6, which is close to the left-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because the outcome is unlikely. The distractors: 5/6 comes from giving the probability of not rolling a 6; 1/2 comes from treating 'a 6' and 'not a 6' as two equally likely outcomes; 1/5 comes from writing the one favourable face over the 5 faces that are not a 6 instead of over all 6 faces.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) Red — Theoretical probability is 1/3 ≈ 0.333 for each colour. Red's relative frequency is 38/90 ≈ 0.422, above 1/3, so red is over-represented. Blue's relative frequency is 26/90 ≈ 0.289, below 1/3, so blue is under-represented, not over. Green's relative frequency is also 26/90 ≈ 0.289, below 1/3 for the same reason. Since red's relative frequency clearly exceeds 1/3, it is not true that none of the colours are over-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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.