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
- (c) £3.10 — Aisha's tickets cost 8 × 50p = £4.00. Her expected winnings are (8/400) × £45 = £0.90, since she holds 8 of the 400 tickets. Her expected loss is the cost minus the expected winnings: £4.00 − £0.90 = £3.10. Writing £4.00 is wrong because it is only the cost of her tickets, with no account taken of the expected winnings she might get back. Writing £0.90 is wrong because that is her expected WINNINGS, not her loss — the cost has not been subtracted. Writing £3.89 is wrong because it uses 1 ticket instead of her actual 8 tickets when working out the expected winnings: (1/400) × £45 = £0.1125, giving £4.00 − £0.11 = £3.89. Aisha should expect to lose £3.10.
- (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) 500 — Method: the expected number of successes is the number of trials multiplied by the probability, so to find the number of trials, divide the expected number by the probability. Working: let n be the number of seeds planted. Then n multiplied by 0.6 must come to 300, so n = 300 ÷ 0.6 = 500. Answer: the grower should plant 500 seeds. The distractors: 180 comes from multiplying instead of dividing, 300 × 0.6 = 180, which answers how many of 300 seeds would germinate; 750 comes from dividing by the probability of not germinating, 300 ÷ 0.4 = 750; 120 comes from multiplying by that same 0.4, 300 × 0.4 = 120.
- (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) 24/125 — On the fiction branch, 160 − 112 = 48 books were returned late. None of the non-fiction books were late, so the total number of late books is 48, out of 250 books altogether: 48/250 = 24/125. Writing 3/10 is wrong because it divides the 48 late fiction books by the fiction total (160) instead of the whole library total (250). Writing 56/125 is wrong because 112/250 simplifies to 56/125, and 112 is the number of fiction books returned ON TIME, not late. Writing 9/25 is wrong because 90/250 simplifies to 9/25, and 90 is simply the number of non-fiction books, which has nothing to do with late returns. The probability is 24/125.
- (c) 1/10 — On the adult branch, 210 − 189 = 21 appointments were missed. There are 300 − 210 = 90 child appointments, and 90 − 81 = 9 of those were missed. In total, 21 + 9 = 30 appointments were missed, out of 300: 30/300 = 1/10. Writing 7/100 is wrong because 21/300 simplifies to 7/100, and 21 only counts the adult branch, leaving out the 9 missed child appointments. Writing 3/100 is wrong because 9/300 simplifies to 3/100, and 9 only counts the child branch, leaving out the 21 missed adult appointments. Writing 1/9 is wrong because it divides the 30 missed appointments by the 270 that were attended (300 − 30) instead of by the whole 300 booked. The probability is 1/10.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 120 — 27 of the 45 sweets are orange (45 − 18 = 27), so the probability of taking an orange sweet is 27/45 = 3/5, and 200 × 3/5 = 120. Writing 80 is wrong because 200 × 18/45 = 80 uses the LEMON sweets' fraction instead of orange. Writing 182 is wrong because it takes the 18 lemon sweets away from the 200 repeats (200 − 18 = 182), applying the ‘the rest are orange’ subtraction to the number of goes instead of to the 45 sweets in the bag. Writing 27 is wrong because it is simply the number of orange sweets in the bag — it has not been scaled up to account for the 200 repeats. The expected number of times an orange sweet is taken is 120.
- (b) Organiser favoured — expected pay-out is under £1 — The expected pay-out per game is the prize times the probability of winning: £4 × 1/5 = £0.80. The expected income per game is the £1 entry fee, which the organiser collects regardless of the result. Since £0.80 is less than £1, the game favours the organiser, because the expected pay-out is under £1. The claim that the game favours the player, because the pay-out is over £1, is wrong on both counts — the pay-out is not over £1, and it is the organiser who benefits. The claim that the organiser is favoured because the pay-out is over £1 reaches the right side but the wrong reason: £0.80 is under £1, not over it. The claim that the two expected amounts are equal is also wrong: £0.80 and £1 are different amounts, so the game is not fair to both sides.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 3,860 — The probability a bulb works correctly is the complement of being defective: 1 − 0.035 = 0.965. Expected number working correctly = 0.965 × 4,000 = 3,860. Using the probability of being defective instead of its complement gives 4,000 × 0.035 = 140, the expected number of DEFECTIVE bulbs, not working ones. Shifting the decimal point in the complement, using 0.0965 instead of 0.965, gives 4,000 × 0.0965 = 386. Assuming every bulb works, ignoring the 0.035 probability altogether, gives the full batch of 4,000.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.