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
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 40% — 32 out of the 80 people chose Coffee, so the percentage is (32 ÷ 80) × 100 = 40%. Choosing 32% comes from treating 32 as if it were already a percentage out of 100, instead of dividing by the actual total of 80 people surveyed. Choosing 25% comes from using the Tea row instead of the Coffee row, (20 ÷ 80) × 100 = 25%. Choosing 20% comes from using the Juice row instead of the Coffee row, (16 ÷ 80) × 100 = 20%.
- (a) 20 — Dice A is fair, so its expected number of sixes is 150 × 1/6 = 25. Dice B has P(6) = 0.3, so its expected number of sixes is 150 × 0.3 = 45. The difference is 45 − 25 = 20. Adding the two expected values instead of subtracting them gives 25 + 45 = 70. Reporting Dice B's expected sixes on their own, without comparing to Dice A, gives 45. Using the fair probability 1/6 for Dice B as well as Dice A ignores the bias altogether, giving 150 × 1/6 = 25 for both dice and a difference of 0.
- (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.
- (c) 0.37 — Method: pool the two runs into one combined set of results, then find the relative frequency of red across all of the spins together. Working: total reds = 16 + 21 = 37. Total spins = 40 + 60 = 100. Relative frequency = 37 ÷ 100 = 0.37. Answer: 0.37. Watch out: writing down 0.40 uses only the first run, 16 ÷ 40, and throws away the extra evidence from the second 60 spins. Writing down 0.35 uses only the second run, 21 ÷ 60, and throws away the first run instead. And writing down 0.375 averages the two runs' separate rates, (0.40 + 0.35) ÷ 2, which treats a run of 40 spins and a run of 60 spins as equally weighted, when pooling the actual counts gives the larger run its fair share of influence.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 41/160 — In total, 27 + 14 = 41 of the 160 employees cycle to work, so the probability is 41/160 (41 and 160 share no common factor, so this is already in its simplest form). Writing 27/160 is wrong because it only counts the full-time cyclists and leaves out the 14 part-time cyclists. Writing 41/90 is wrong because it uses the full-time total (90) as the denominator instead of the whole survey (160). Writing 1/5 is wrong because it only uses the part-time branch, simplifying 14/70 to 1/5 and ignoring the full-time cyclists completely. The probability is 41/160.
- (d) 56 — Method: count the trials over the whole period first, then multiply the number of trials by the probability. Working: 4 weeks is 4 × 7 = 28 days, and at 25 trains a day that is 25 × 28 = 700 trains. The expected number of late trains is 700 × 0.08 = 56. Answer: about 56 late trains over the 4 weeks. The distractors: 2 is the expected number for a single day, 25 × 0.08 = 2, with the 28 days never brought in; 14 uses one week instead of four, 25 × 7 × 0.08 = 14; 644 is 700 − 56 and counts the trains expected to be on time.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.