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) 160 — Expected number = probability × number of trials = 0.08 × 2,000 = 160. Moving the decimal point one place too far, using 0.008 instead of 0.08, gives 2,000 × 0.008 = 16. Working out the expected number of customers who do NOT buy a bag, using the complement 1 − 0.08 = 0.92, gives 2,000 × 0.92 = 1,840. Rounding 0.08 up to 0.1 before multiplying gives 2,000 × 0.1 = 200.
- (d) 140 — 90 pupils were in Year 8 on the coach branch. The minibus branch has 200 − 150 = 50 pupils, and all of them are Year 8 too, so the total number of Year 8 pupils is 90 + 50 = 140. Writing 90 alone is wrong because it only counts the coach's Year 8 pupils and misses the minibus ones. Writing 60 is wrong because that is the number of Year 9 pupils on the coach (150 − 90 = 60), not Year 8 at all. Writing 50 alone is wrong because it only counts the minibus pupils and misses the coach's Year 8 pupils. The total is 140.
- (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.
- (b) 80 — To find the number of attempts needed, divide the target number of successes by the probability of success: 60 ÷ 0.75 = 80. Writing 45 is wrong because 60 × 0.75 = 45 multiplies instead of dividing — that is the number of successes expected from 60 attempts, not the number of attempts needed for 60 successes. Writing 240 is wrong because 60 ÷ 0.25 = 240 uses 0.25, the probability of MISSING, instead of 0.75, the probability of scoring. Writing 90 is wrong because it comes from misremembering 0.75 as 2/3 and dividing by that instead: 60 ÷ (2/3) = 90. She needs to attempt 80 free throws.
- (d) 0.420 — Method: use the relative frequency worked out from the larger number of trials as the best estimate of the probability, since a bigger sample tends to sit closer to the true probability. Working: 84 out of 200 drops land open end up, so the relative frequency from the total is 84 ÷ 200 = 0.420. Answer: 0.420. Watch out: writing down 0.650 comes from 13 ÷ 20, using only the first, much smaller sample instead of the total. Writing down 0.535 comes from averaging 0.650 and 0.420, treating the 20-drop run and the 200-drop run as equally reliable instead of using the larger sample on its own. And writing down 0.580 comes from 1 − 0.420, working out the probability that the bottle top lands the other way up instead of open end up.
- (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.
- (a) £124.80 — On the cake branch, 150 − 100 = 50 cakes were bought by children. Adding the 54 biscuits bought by children gives 50 + 54 = 104 items sold to children in total, and at £1.20 each that raises 104 × £1.20 = £124.80. Writing £60.00 is wrong because 50 × £1.20 = £60.00 only counts the cake sales to children and leaves out the 54 biscuits. Writing £163.20 is wrong because it uses the ADULT sales instead of children's: 100 cake adults plus 90 − 54 = 36 biscuit adults gives 136 × £1.20 = £163.20. Writing £136.80 is wrong because it finds the cake children's number by subtracting the wrong branch (150 − 90 = 60 instead of 150 − 100 = 50), giving 60 + 54 = 114 items and 114 × £1.20 = £136.80. The total raised from sales to children is £124.80.
- (b) £100 — Over 250 games, the expected total winnings are 250 × (1/5) × £12 = £600, since a player wins on 1 of the 5 equally likely sections. The total cost of playing is 250 × £2 = £500. The players' expected profit is the winnings minus the cost: £600 − £500 = £100. Writing £500 is wrong because that is only the total cost of playing, without any winnings included. Writing £600 is wrong because that is only the total expected winnings, without subtracting what was paid to play. Writing £2,500 is wrong because it assumes a win on every single game (250 × £12 = £3,000) instead of using the 1-in-5 probability, then subtracts the cost: £3,000 − £500 = £2,500. The players' expected profit over the 250 games is £100.
- (d) 3400 — Combining all three greenhouses gives 200 + 150 + 250 = 600 seeds planted in total, and 172 + 126 + 212 = 510 germinated, so the combined estimate of the germination probability is 510/600 = 0.85. Out of a new batch of 4000 seeds, the expected number to germinate is 4000 × 0.85 = 3400. Writing 3440 is wrong because it uses only Greenhouse 1's rate, 172/200 = 0.86, instead of the combined rate from all three: 4000 × 0.86 = 3440. Writing 3360 is wrong because it uses only Greenhouse 2's rate, 126/150 = 0.84: 4000 × 0.84 = 3360. Writing 510 is wrong because that is the total number that germinated in the ORIGINAL trial, not scaled up to the new batch of 4000 seeds at all. The best estimate is 3400 seeds.
- (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.
- (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) 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.'
- (d) 136 — 15% of 160 = 0.15 × 160 = 24 patients reported side effects, so 160 − 24 = 136 did not. Stopping after finding the number who reported side effects, 24, answers the wrong question — it is not the number who did NOT report them. Misreading '15%' as a raw count of 15 patients, rather than a percentage, gives 160 − 15 = 145. Subtracting 15% of 160 twice, 160 − 24 − 24 = 112, double-counts the side-effect group.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.