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) 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.
- (c) 80 — Since 180 calls are 0.75 of all the technical support calls, the technical support total is 180 ÷ 0.75 = 240. The billing calls make up the rest of the 320 calls, so 320 − 240 = 80. Choosing 240 comes from stopping after finding the technical support total and forgetting the question asks for the billing calls, which are the rest. Choosing 185 comes from multiplying 180 × 0.75 = 135 instead of dividing, then working out 320 − 135 = 185. Choosing 140 comes from using 180 directly as the whole technical support total, ignoring the probability altogether, then working out 320 − 180 = 140.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 1/12 — Method: list the full possibility space of sandwich-and-drink pairs, then divide the one matching pair by the size of the whole space. Working: there are 3 × 4 = 12 equally likely sandwich-and-drink pairs, and exactly one of them is egg and water. Answer: 1/12. Watch out: writing down 1/7 comes from adding the two counts, 3 + 4 = 7, instead of multiplying them to build the possibility space. Writing down 1/3 uses only the chance of choosing egg out of 3 sandwiches and ignores the drink altogether. And writing down 1/4 uses only the chance of choosing water out of 4 drinks and ignores the sandwich altogether.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 75% — 'Percentage of the women' restricts the group to the 80 women, of whom 60 attend yoga: 60/80 = 0.75 = 75%. Dividing by the number of men (200 − 80 = 120) instead of the number of women gives 60/120 = 0.5 = 50%. Dividing by all 200 members instead of just the 80 women gives 60/200 = 0.3 = 30%. Using the 20 women who do NOT attend yoga (80 − 60) as the numerator instead of the 60 who do gives 20/80 = 0.25 = 25%.
- (d) 1/20 — Method: add the counts on the faulty end branches, divide by the total number of items in the experiment, then cancel. Working: the faulty items number 15 + 5 = 20, and 400 items were checked, so the probability is 20/400. Dividing the top and the bottom by 20 gives 1/20. Answer: the probability is 1/20. The distractors: 3/50 is 15/250 and comes from dividing machine A's faults by machine A's output, which is that machine's own fault rate rather than the probability for the whole batch; 1/30 is 5/150 and does the same on machine B's branch; 19/20 is 380/400 and gives the probability that the item picked is not faulty.
- (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.
- (d) No, because 3/8 + 5/12 + 1/6 = 23/24 — Using a common denominator of 24: 3/8 = 9/24, 5/12 = 10/24 and 1/6 = 4/24. Adding these numerators gives 9 + 10 + 4 = 23, so the three probabilities sum to 23/24, which is less than 1 — Zara is not correct. Adding the original numerators (3 + 5 + 1 = 9) over a denominator of 12 instead of converting each fraction properly gives 9/12 = 3/4, still less than 1 but the wrong fraction. Converting 1/6 to 5/24 instead of 4/24 (using the wrong scaling) makes the total 9/24 + 10/24 + 5/24 = 24/24 = 1, wrongly suggesting the probabilities are valid. Judging validity from the fact that each individual fraction lies between 0 and 1 ignores that an exhaustive set must sum to exactly 1, not merely contain valid individual values.
- (c) 9/16 — There are 180 students in total and 84 are in Year 11, so Year 10 has 180 − 84 = 96 students. Of those 96, 42 travel by bus, so 96 − 42 = 54 walk. P(Year 10 student walks) = 54/96 = 9/16. Using the whole school of 180 as the denominator instead of just the 96 Year 10 students gives 54/180 = 3/10. Using the bus count, 42, as if it were the number who walk gives 42/96 = 7/16, the wrong branch of the Year 10 row. Working out the probability for Year 11 instead of Year 10 — 46 walkers out of 84 — gives 46/84 = 23/42.
- (a) 1200 — Method: take the estimate from the larger sample, because an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the true probability as the sample grows, then multiply by the number of bulbs made in a week. Working: Inspector B tested 500 bulbs, far more than Inspector A's 40, so use B's relative frequency: 30 ÷ 500 = 0.06. A week's production is 4000 × 5 = 20000 bulbs. The expected number of faulty bulbs is 20000 × 0.06 = 1200. Answer: about 1200 faulty bulbs a week. The distractors: 2000 uses Inspector A's estimate, 4 ÷ 40 = 0.1, giving 20000 × 0.1 = 2000, and so rests on a sample of only 40 bulbs; 1600 comes from averaging the two estimates of 0.1 and 0.06 to get 0.08, and 20000 × 0.08 = 1600, which gives the small sample equal weight with the large one; 240 uses the right estimate but stops at a single day, 4000 × 0.06 = 240.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.