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) 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.
- (d) 3/50 — Relative frequency is the number of faulty bolts divided by the total sample size: 15/250, which simplifies to 3/50 by dividing both the numerator and the denominator by 5. Using 235, the number of bolts that were NOT faulty, as the denominator instead of the total 250 gives 15/235, which simplifies to 3/47. Inverting the fraction, dividing the total by the number of faulty bolts instead of the other way round, gives 250/15, which simplifies to 50/3 — a value greater than 1, which cannot be a probability. Simplifying by dividing the numerator and the denominator by different numbers, 15 ÷ 15 = 1 and 250 ÷ 25 = 10, gives 1/10.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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%.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.'
- (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) 3/7 — Method: every counter is equally likely to be taken, so write the number of red counters over the total number of counters in the bag. Working: the bag holds 3 + 2 + 2 = 7 counters, of which 3 are red. Answer: 3/7, a value between 0 and 1 and just below the middle of the scale. The distractors: 4/7 comes from giving the probability that the counter is not red, counting the 2 blue and 2 green instead; 2/7 comes from counting one of the other colours by mistake and giving 2 counters over the total; 3/4 comes from writing the 3 red counters over the 4 counters that are not red instead of over all 7 counters.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.