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
- (b) 500 — Method: when a dice is known to be fair, the theoretical probability is the best thing to work from, and the more trials there are the closer the results tend to it. Working: for a fair dice the probability of a six is 1/6, so the expected number of sixes in 3000 rolls is 3000 × 1 ÷ 6 = 500. The class experiment gave a relative frequency of 14/60, but 60 trials is far too few to overturn a known theoretical value, and the school's 3000 rolls will tend towards 1/6 in any case. Answer: about 500 sixes. The distractors: 700 comes from using the class relative frequency instead of the theory, 3000 × 14 ÷ 60 = 700; 600 comes from splitting the difference between the two, since 1/6 is about 0.167 and 14/60 is about 0.233, whose mean is 0.2, and 3000 × 0.2 = 600; 2500 uses 5/6 instead of 1/6 and counts the rolls expected not to be a six.
- (b) 39 — Method: put the counts into a two-way table and fill each missing cell by subtracting along a row or down a column. Working: the number of female members is 150 − 80 = 70. The pool column holds 66 members and 35 of them are male, so the number of female pool users is 66 − 35 = 31. Subtracting along the female row, 70 − 31 = 39 female members use the gym. Answer: 39 female members use the gym. The distractors: 45 comes from subtracting along the male row instead, 80 − 35 = 45, which counts male gym users; 31 is the female pool cell, written down one step before the gym cell; 84 is 150 − 66 and counts every gym user, male and female together.
- (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.
- (b) £13.50 — The total cost of Nadia's 25 tickets is 25 × £1.50 = £37.50. The expected number of winning tickets is 25 × 0.12 = 3, so the expected prize money is 3 × £8 = £24.00. Nadia's expected loss is the cost minus the expected prize money: £37.50 − £24.00 = £13.50. A candidate who answers £24.00 has given the expected prize money and mistaken it for the loss. A candidate who answers £37.50 has given the total cost of the tickets, forgetting to subtract the expected prize money. A candidate who answers £34.50 has subtracted the expected number of wins, 3, from the cost instead of first converting it to prize money by multiplying by £8.
- (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.
- (b) 70 — Saloon, estate and hatchback are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of a hatchback is 1 − 0.28 − 0.37 = 0.35. The number of hatchbacks is 0.35 × 200 = 70. Treating the SUM of the other two probabilities, 0.28 + 0.37 = 0.65, as the probability of a hatchback instead of its complement gives 0.65 × 200 = 130. Multiplying the correct probability, 0.35, by 100 instead of the 200 cars actually surveyed gives 35. Averaging the two given probabilities, (0.28 + 0.37) ÷ 2 = 0.325, instead of subtracting them from 1, and then multiplying by 200 gives 65.
- (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.
- (a) 50 — To find the number of shots needed for an expected 12 hits, divide the number of hits wanted by the probability of a hit: 12 ÷ 0.24 = 50. Multiplying the number of hits by the probability instead of dividing gives 12 × 0.24 = 2.88, which rounds to 3 shots. Rounding 0.24 to 0.25 before dividing gives 12 ÷ 0.25 = 48. Using the probability of missing, 1 − 0.24 = 0.76, instead of the probability of hitting, gives 12 ÷ 0.76 = 15.79, which rounds to 16.
- (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) £0.30 profit for the stall — The stall keeps the £1.50 entry fee whatever happens, and expects to pay out prize × probability of winning = £6 × 0.2 = £1.20 on average. So its expected profit per game is £1.50 − £1.20 = £0.30. Reporting the expected pay-out of £1.20 itself as the profit forgets that the stall also keeps the entry fee. Assuming the player always wins gives an expected cost of £6 − £1.50 = £4.50, treated as a loss for the stall. Using the probability of NOT winning, 0.8, to find the expected pay-out gives £6 × 0.8 = £4.80, and £1.50 − £4.80 = −£3.30, a £3.30 loss.
- (a) Game B, by £8 — Game A's expected total is 40 × 0.2 × £5 = £40. Game B's expected total is 40 × 0.1 × £12 = £48. Game B is higher, by £48 − £40 = £8. Writing 'Game A, by £8' is wrong because it has the right difference but the wrong game — Game A's total (£40) is actually LOWER than Game B's, not higher. Writing 'Game B, by £48' is wrong because £48 is Game B's whole expected total, not the DIFFERENCE between the two games. Writing 'Game A, by £40' is wrong in the same way, using Game A's whole total as if it were the margin, and naming the wrong game as the winner. Game B gives the higher expected total, by £8.
- (d) 12/25 — The group holds 40 of the 250 tickets, so for any one prize the probability the group wins it is 40/250 = 4/25. There are 3 prizes and the group has the same chance at each one, so the expected number won is 3 × 4/25 = 12/25. Writing 4/25 is wrong because it is the chance of winning just ONE prize, without multiplying by the 3 prizes available. Writing 4/75 is wrong because it divides by the 3 prizes instead of multiplying (4/25 ÷ 3 = 4/75), which would mean the group did worse the more prizes were on offer. Writing 64/15625 is wrong because it multiplies the single-prize probability by itself three times, (4/25)³, as though all three prizes had to be won together, instead of adding up the expected number across the three separate prizes. The expected number of prizes won by the group is 12/25.
- (b) 3/5 — The question asks about the girls only, so use the girls' total of 70 as the denominator: 42 out of 70 girls walk, giving 42/70 = 3/5. Choosing 21/65 comes from using the whole survey of 130 pupils as the denominator instead of just the 70 girls, 42/130 = 21/65. Choosing 33/70 comes from using the boys' walking count, 33, over the girls' total of 70, mixing up the two rows of the table. Choosing 2/5 comes from using the number of girls who CYCLE, 70 − 42 = 28, instead of the number who walk, giving 28/70 = 2/5.
- (c) 102 — Method: turn the past record into a relative frequency, then use it as an estimate of the probability of rain and multiply by the number of days being predicted for. Working: relative frequency of rain = 70 ÷ 250 = 0.28. Expected rainy days in 365 days = 365 × 0.28 = 102.2, which rounds to about 102 days. Answer: about 102 days. Watch out: writing down 48 swaps which number is the sample and which is the target, working out 70 ÷ 365 × 250 instead of 70 ÷ 250 × 365. Writing down 70 just repeats the original count of rainy days without scaling it up to the new, longer period at all. And writing down 110 comes from rounding the relative frequency to 0.3 before multiplying, 365 × 0.3 = 109.5, when 70 ÷ 250 is exactly 0.28 and needs no rounding at all.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.