Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16
Probability worksheet — GCSE Foundation
Fifteen questions across the probability statements at Foundation tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Calculator
Answer key: Probability worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) 60 — Method: because the counter goes back each time, every draw is the same experiment, so the expected number of reds is the number of draws multiplied by P(red). Working: there are 8 red counters out of 20, so P(red) = 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4. Over 150 draws the expected number of reds is 150 × 0.4 = 60. Answer: about 60 red counters would be expected. The distractors: 90 uses P(blue) by mistake, 150 × 12 ÷ 20 = 90; 100 comes from writing the probability from the red to blue ratio of 8 to 12, giving 150 × 8 ÷ 12 = 100; 75 comes from treating red and blue as equally likely because there are two colours, which gives 150 ÷ 2 = 75.
- (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) 325 — Method: first find the relative frequency of NOT landing on red from the 200 spins, then scale that up to 500 spins. Working: non-red results = 50 + 80 = 130, out of 200 spins, so P(not red) = 130 ÷ 200 = 0.65. Expected non-red results in 500 spins = 500 × 0.65 = 325. Answer: 325. Watch out: writing down 175 finds the expected number of RED results instead, 70 ÷ 200 × 500 = 175, answering the opposite of what was asked. Writing down 250 assumes landing red or not landing red must be a fair 50-50 split, but the spinner is biased and the actual results do not split evenly. And writing down 130 stops after finding how many of the 200 spins were non-red and forgets to scale that figure up to the 500 spins asked for.
- (b) £100 — Method: find the expected number of wins, turn that into the expected pay out, then compare it with what the games cost. Working: the expected number of wins is 200 × 0.15 = 30. Each win pays £10, so the expected pay out is 30 × 10 = 300 pounds. Playing 200 times at £2 a go costs 200 × 2 = 400 pounds. The expected loss is 400 − 300 = 100 pounds. Answer: Amir should expect to be about £100 down. The distractors: £300 is the expected winnings on their own, with the cost of playing never taken off; £400 is the total cost of playing, with the winnings never taken off; £700 comes from adding the two totals, 400 + 300 = 700, instead of subtracting one from the other.
- (b) The relative frequency is settling near 0.5 — Method: turn each result into a relative frequency before comparing them, because it is the relative frequency, and not the difference between the two counts, that tends towards the theoretical probability. Working: after 10 flips the relative frequency of a head is 7 ÷ 10 = 0.7, which is a long way from 0.5. After 1000 flips it is 528 ÷ 1000 = 0.528, which is much closer to 0.5. Meanwhile the gap between the two counts has grown rather than shrunk: it was 7 − 3 = 4 after 10 flips and is 528 − 472 = 56 after 1000 flips. Answer: the relative frequency is settling near 0.5, which is what an unbiased experiment does as the sample grows. The distractors: saying the counts are levelling out is the usual form of this idea and the figures contradict it, since the gap went from 4 to 56; saying the coin is biased treats 28 extra heads in 1000 flips as proof, when 0.528 sits close to 0.5 and a fair coin gives results like this often; saying the next flip is more likely to be a tail is the gambler's fallacy, since each flip stays at 1/2 whatever came before.
- (c) 30 — The numbers less than 4 are 1, 2 and 3, so the probability of that event is 3/6, and the expected count in 90 rolls is 90 × 3/6 = 45. The probability of rolling a 6 is 1/6, and the expected count is 90 × 1/6 = 15. The difference between the two expected counts is 45 − 15 = 30. A candidate who answers 45 has given the expected count for 'less than 4' only, forgetting to subtract the other expected count. A candidate who answers 15 has given the expected count for '6' only. A candidate who answers 36 has used a dice with 5 possible numbers instead of 6, giving 90 × 3/5 = 54 and 90 × 1/5 = 18, a difference of 36.
- (b) 0.55 — Method: it is easier to find the probability that Ffion wins NEITHER stage, then subtract that from 1. Working: P(lose stage 1) = 1 − 0.4 = 0.6, and P(lose stage 2) = 1 − 0.25 = 0.75. P(neither) = 0.6 × 0.75 = 0.45. P(at least one) = 1 − 0.45 = 0.55. Answer: 0.55. Watch out: adding the two win probabilities, 0.4 + 0.25 = 0.65, treats winning both as impossible and overcounts — that is not how independent probabilities combine. Multiplying the two win probabilities, 0.4 × 0.25 = 0.1, gives the probability of winning BOTH stages, not at least one. And stopping at 0.45, the probability of winning neither stage, forgets the final step of subtracting from 1.
- (b) 100 — The sample shows a proportion of 8/60 = 2/15 faulty. Apply that proportion to the new batch of 750: 750 × 2/15 = 100. Flipping the ratio, calculating 8/750 × 60 instead of 8/60 × 750, gives 0.64, which rounds to about 1. Assuming the same number of faulty items applies to the new batch, without scaling for its larger size, just repeats the sample's count of 8. Rounding the proportion 8/60 = 0.1333... down to 0.1 before multiplying gives 750 × 0.1 = 75.
- (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) 1276 — Method: an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the theoretical probability as the number of trials increases, so use the record resting on the most trials, then multiply by the number of new trials. Working: the three records rest on 50, 200 and 1000 drops, so the most reliable is the one after 1000 drops, namely 0.638, and the run is indeed settling as the trials increase. The expected number of point up landings in 2000 further drops is 2000 × 0.638 = 1276. Answer: about 1276 times. The distractors: 1440 uses the earliest record, which rests on only 50 drops, giving 2000 × 0.720 = 1440; 1330 uses the middle record, treating 200 drops as a safe compromise when 1000 drops is better still, giving 2000 × 0.665 = 1330; 1348 comes from averaging the three records, since 0.720 + 0.665 + 0.638 = 2.023 and 2.023 ÷ 3 = 0.674, then 2000 × 0.674 = 1348, which gives the 50 drop record the same weight as the 1000 drop record.
- (b) 3/10 — The number who use at least one app is 90 − 20 = 70. Since 55 + 42 double-counts the overlap, n(X ∩ Y) = 55 + 42 − 70 = 27, so P(both) = 27/90 = 3/10. Forgetting to subtract the 20 who use neither, and using the full 90 as the union, gives 55 + 42 − 90 = 7, so 7/90. Reporting the probability of using X or Y (or both), 70/90 = 7/9, answers a different question about the union, not the overlap. Reporting the probability of using neither app, 20/90 = 2/9, is the complement of the union, not the intersection.
- (a) 43/70 — There are 140 − 85 = 55 Zone B households, and 55 − 21 = 34 of them recycle glass. In total, 52 + 34 = 86 households recycle glass, out of 140: 86/140 = 43/70. Writing 13/35 is wrong because 52/140 simplifies to 13/35, and 52 only counts Zone A, leaving out the 34 Zone B recyclers. Writing 17/70 is wrong because 34/140 simplifies to 17/70, and 34 only counts Zone B, leaving out the 52 Zone A recyclers. Writing 73/140 is wrong because it adds the 52 Zone A recyclers to the 21 Zone B households that do NOT recycle, mixing up two different groups instead of adding the two recycling groups. The probability is 43/70.
- (c) 170 — 68% of the 250 packets germinated: 250 × 0.68 = 170. Using the complement, the 32% that did NOT germinate, gives 250 × 0.32 = 80. Shifting the decimal point, using 0.068 instead of 0.68, gives 250 × 0.068 = 17. Rounding 68% up to 70% before multiplying gives 250 × 0.70 = 175.
- (d) 24 — There are 4 choices for the first digit. Once that digit is used, 3 digits remain for the second position, and then 2 digits remain for the third position: 4 × 3 × 2 = 24 codes. Choosing 64 comes from allowing a digit to be reused at every position, 4 × 4 × 4 = 64, which is not allowed here since no digit repeats. Choosing 12 comes from multiplying only the first two positions, 4 × 3 = 12, and forgetting that a third digit is also chosen from the digits that remain. Choosing 6 comes from counting only the arrangements of one single set of three digits, 3 × 2 × 1 = 6, and forgetting that there are 4 different sets of three digits that can be chosen from 2, 3, 4 and 5.
- (a) 753 — The estimate from 2000 spins is the most reliable, since it comes from the largest sample size, so the best estimate of the probability is 0.251. Over a further 3000 spins, the expected number landing on green is 3000 × 0.251 = 753. Writing 1050 is wrong because 3000 × 0.350 = 1050 uses the estimate from only 20 spins, the LEAST reliable of the three. Writing 870 is wrong because 3000 × 0.290 = 870 uses the estimate from 200 spins rather than the more reliable 2000-spin estimate. Writing 750 is wrong because 3000 × 0.25 = 750 ignores the recorded data completely and simply assumes each of the 4 colours is equally likely. The best estimate is 753 expected green spins.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.