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.
Non-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.
- (a) No — the three probabilities sum to 1.10, over 1. — Winning, drawing and losing are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, so their probabilities must sum to exactly 1. Adding Freddie's three values gives 0.45 + 0.3 + 0.35 = 1.10, which is more than 1, so his probabilities cannot all be correct: 'No — the three probabilities sum to 1.10, over 1.' Checking only that each value lies between 0 and 1 accepts them as 'Yes — each probability lies between 0 and 1' without ever adding the three together. Judging by which outcome sounds most likely leads to 'Yes — winning has the highest single probability', which never checks the total either. Noting that a runner cannot win, draw and lose at once, and treating that alone as enough, gives 'Yes — the three outcomes are mutually exclusive' — but mutually exclusive outcomes that are also exhaustive must still sum to 1, and 1.10 does not.
- (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.
- (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) 8/52 — Method: a card cannot be an ace and a king at the same time, so the two events are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added, keeping the denominator the same. Working: P(ace) = 4/52 and P(king) = 4/52, so P(ace or king) = 4/52 + 4/52, and 4 + 4 = 8 fifty-seconds. Answer: 8/52. The distractors: 4/52 comes from giving the probability of just one of the two events and forgetting to add the other; 16/52 comes from multiplying the two counts, 4 × 4, instead of adding them; 1/52 comes from giving the probability of one particular named card rather than any of the eight.
- (a) 60 — Method: because the counter goes back each time, every draw is the same experiment, so the expected number of reds is the number of draws multiplied by P(red). Working: there are 8 red counters out of 20, so P(red) = 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4. Over 150 draws the expected number of reds is 150 × 0.4 = 60. Answer: about 60 red counters would be expected. The distractors: 90 uses P(blue) by mistake, 150 × 12 ÷ 20 = 90; 100 comes from writing the probability from the red to blue ratio of 8 to 12, giving 150 × 8 ÷ 12 = 100; 75 comes from treating red and blue as equally likely because there are two colours, which gives 150 ÷ 2 = 75.
- (d) 3/36 — Method: list the results as ordered pairs, decide which totals satisfy the condition, count the pairs that give those totals and divide by the number of pairs there are. Working: there are 6 × 6 = 36 equally likely ordered pairs. Greater than 10 means a total of 11 or a total of 12. A total of 11 comes from (5, 6) and (6, 5); a total of 12 comes from (6, 6) alone, because both dice must show a 6. That is 2 + 1 = 3 pairs out of the 36. Answer: the probability is 3/36. The distractors: 2/36 comes from counting the two ways of making 11 and forgetting that 12 is greater than 10 as well; 4/36 comes from writing (6, 6) down twice, applying the rule that a pair can be turned round to a double that can only happen one way; 33/36 comes from reading the condition the wrong way round and giving the probability that the total is 10 or less.
- (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) 1/10 — Method: list every possible pair of subjects systematically, so that no pair is missed and no pair is counted twice, then compare the number of successful pairs with the size of the list. Working: pairing maths with each of the other four gives 4 pairs, physics with each subject after it gives 3, biology gives 2 and chemistry gives 1, so there are 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10 pairs. Exactly one of them is maths with biology. Answer: the probability is 1/10. The distractors: 1/5 comes from counting maths-then-biology and biology-then-maths as two separate successes while still dividing by the 10 unordered pairs; 1/15 comes from a list that also pairs each subject with itself, giving 15 entries instead of 10; 1/4 comes from working out the second step alone, that 1 of the 4 subjects left after maths is biology, without allowing for the chance that maths is picked at all.
- (a) Class A — Class A: 18/24 = 0.75 = 75%. Class B: 21/30 = 0.7 = 70%. Since 75% > 70%, class A had the greater proportion passing, even though fewer pupils passed there in total. Choosing class B compares the raw numbers of pupils who passed (21 > 18) rather than the proportions. The two proportions are not equal — 0.75 and 0.7 are different values, so the two classes did not have the same pass rate. The class sizes being different does not prevent a comparison: converting each to a proportion makes the two classes directly comparable, so the answer can be determined.
- (c) 0.15 — Method: for two independent events, multiply along the branches of the tree to find the probability of both outcomes happening together. Working: P(red and heads) = P(red) × P(heads) = 0.3 × 0.5 = 0.15. Answer: 0.15. Watch out: adding the two probabilities, 0.3 + 0.5 = 0.8, does not give the probability of both — probabilities along one path of a tree are multiplied, not added. Writing down 0.5 ignores the spinner altogether and gives only the coin's probability. And writing down 0.65 is the probability of red OR heads, which is 0.3 + 0.5 − 0.15 = 0.65, a different question from the one asked here.
- (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) 90 — Method: over many future trials the expected number of successes is the number of trials multiplied by the probability of a success. Working: the sections are equal, so each is equally likely and P(red) is 3 out of 8. Over 240 spins the expected number of reds is 240 × 3 ÷ 8 = 90. Answer: about 90 of the spins would be expected to land on red. The distractors: 150 uses the 5 sections that are not red, 240 × 5 ÷ 8 = 150, which is the expected number of spins that do not land on red; 30 is 240 ÷ 8 and is the expected count for one single section; 80 comes from dividing by the number of red sections instead of by the number of sections, 240 ÷ 3 = 80.
- (d) 1/3 — List the outcomes for the two spinners systematically in a 3 × 3 grid: 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, where the first number is the score on spinner A and the second is the score on spinner B — 9 equally likely outcomes in total. The pairs where the two numbers are the same are 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3, so there are 3 favourable outcomes. P(same number) = 3/9 = 1/3. 2/3 comes from working out the probability that the two numbers are different and then forgetting to take the complement the right way round, so the probability of "different" is given instead of the probability of "same". 1/2 comes from listing only the 6 unordered pairs 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 1-2, 1-3, 2-3 instead of all 9 ordered outcomes in the grid, then taking 3 out of that 6. 1/9 comes from spotting only one of the three matching pairs, such as 1-1, and missing 2-2 and 3-3.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.