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
- (c) 26 — The number who play football or basketball is 27 + 21 − 9 = 39, subtracting the 9 who play both so they are not counted twice. The number who play neither is then 65 − 39 = 26. Giving 39 stops after finding the number who play football or basketball, without taking the complement within the 65 members. Subtracting all three given numbers from 65, 65 − 27 − 21 − 9 = 8, treats the 9 who play both as a separate group rather than a correction for double-counting. Adding 27 and 21 without removing the double-counted 9, then subtracting that total from 65, gives 65 − (27 + 21) = 17.
- (d) 1/15 — The probability that the first bead is red is 3/10. Since the first bead is not put back, there are now only 2 red beads left out of 9 beads in total, so the probability that the second bead is also red is 2/9. Multiplying these, 3/10 × 2/9 = 6/90 = 1/15. A candidate who answers 9/100 has treated the beads as replaced, using 3/10 twice. A candidate who answers 3/50 has correctly reduced the red count to 2 for the second pick but forgotten that the total also falls to 9, using 2/10 instead. A candidate who answers 5/19 has added the numerators and added the denominators, (3+2)/(10+9), instead of multiplying.
- (c) 5/8 — Method: the sections are all the same size, so every section is equally likely; count the sections that are not red and write that count over the total number of sections. Working: 8 − 3 = 5 sections are not red, and there are 8 sections altogether. Answer: 5/8, a value between 0 and 1 and a little above the halfway point of the scale. The distractors: 3/8 comes from giving the probability that the spinner does land on red; 5/11 comes from adding the 3 red sections to the 8 sections to make a total of 11 instead of using the 8 sections that exist; 1/2 comes from assuming that 'red' and 'not red' must be equally likely because there are only two possibilities.
- (b) She is wrong; 12 rolls is too few to judge — Method: compare the result with what is expected, then ask whether the experiment is long enough for a difference to mean anything. Working: if the dice were fair the expected number of sixes in 12 rolls is 12 × 1 ÷ 6 = 2, so 4 sixes is 2 above what was expected. But over only 12 rolls a result like this turns up often by chance: the relative frequency here is 4/12, which is 1/3, and over so few trials a relative frequency can sit well away from 1/6 with no bias at all. Answer: Erin is wrong, because 12 rolls is far too few to decide; she should roll the dice many more times and see whether the relative frequency settles near 1/6. The distractors: saying she is right because 4 beats the expected 2 uses the correct expected value but treats any difference as proof, which so short an experiment cannot give; saying a fair dice gives each score twice in 12 rolls treats an expected value as a guaranteed one; saying that 4 sixes in 12 rolls cancels down to 1 in 6 mis-cancels the fraction, because 4/12 is 1/3, which is twice 1/6, so that comment reaches the right verdict from arithmetic that is wrong.
- (c) 2 — Set A, the multiples of 3, is {3, 6, 9}. Removing the numbers that are also in set B, the even numbers {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}, leaves {3, 9} — 2 numbers are in A but not B. Giving 3, the whole size of set A, forgets to remove the number 6, which is also even. Giving 7 counts every number in A or B combined, {2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10}, rather than only those in A but not B. Giving 4 counts the numbers in set B but not set A, {2, 4, 8, 10}, the wrong way round.
- (c) 39.5% — Win, draw and lose are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 100%: 42% + 18.5% = 60.5% is the percentage that wins or draws. 100% − 60.5% = 39.5% is the percentage that neither wins nor draws. Adding 42% and 18.5% and stopping there, 60.5%, is the probability of winning or drawing, not of neither. Subtracting only the 42% from 100% gives 58.0%, ignoring the draw percentage. Subtracting only the 18.5% from 100% gives 81.5%, ignoring the win percentage.
- (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) (48/52) × (47/51) — Method: for two deals one after the other with nothing put back, multiply the probability of the first by the probability of the second worked out from the cards that are left. Working: 52 − 4 = 48 cards are not aces, so the first card is not an ace with probability 48/52. One card has now gone and it was not an ace, so 51 cards remain and 47 of them are not aces, giving 47/51. Answer: the probability is (48/52) × (47/51). The distractors: (48/52) × (48/52) comes from leaving the pack at 52 cards for the second deal, which is only true if the first card is replaced; (4/52) × (3/51) comes from working out the probability that both cards ARE aces instead of neither; (4/52) × (4/51) comes from the same misreading with the ace count left at 4 while the total is reduced, adjusting only half of the second fraction.
- (d) 0.7 — Method: delayed and not delayed are the only two outcomes, so the two probabilities form an exhaustive set and add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: 1 − 0.3, written as 1.0 − 0.3 with the decimal points lined up. Answer: 0.7. The distractors: 0.3 comes from giving back the probability that the train is delayed instead of its complement; 0.97 comes from lining the decimal points up wrongly and working out 1.00 − 0.03; 0.5 comes from assuming that delayed and not delayed must be equally likely because there are only two outcomes.
- (a) 1/6 — Method: write the results of the two dice as ordered pairs, count the pairs whose scores add to the total asked for, divide by the number of ordered pairs there are, then cancel the fraction down. Working: there are 6 × 6 = 36 equally likely ordered pairs. The pairs whose scores add to 7 are (1, 6), (2, 5), (3, 4), (4, 3), (5, 2) and (6, 1), which is 6 pairs, so the probability is 6/36. Dividing the top and the bottom by 6 gives 1/6. Answer: the probability is 1/6. The distractors: 7/36 comes from taking the number of favourable pairs to be 7 because 7 is the total asked for, confusing the size of a total with the number of ways of making it; 1/7 comes from using the 21 different combinations of two scores as the equally likely results, finding the 3 combinations 1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, and cancelling 3/21; 6/11 comes from counting the 6 favourable pairs correctly but dividing by the 11 possible totals from 2 to 12 rather than by the 36 pairs.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 0.15 — Let P(water) = x, so P(coffee) = 3x. The four outcomes are exhaustive: 0.36 + 0.04 + x + 3x = 1, so 0.4 + 4x = 1, giving 4x = 0.6 and x = 0.15. So P(water) = 0.15. Reporting 3x, the coffee probability, instead of water gives 0.45. Splitting the remaining 0.6 evenly between coffee and water, ignoring the 3:1 ratio, gives 0.30. Stopping once the remaining probability 0.6 is found, without dividing by the four equal shares, gives 0.60.
- (c) 100 — There are 3 even numbers on a fair dice (2, 4 and 6), so the probability of landing on an even number is 3/6 = 1/2, and 300 × 1/2 = 150. The probability of landing on a six is 1/6, so 300 × 1/6 = 50. The dice is expected to land on an even number 150 − 50 = 100 more times than on a six. Writing 50 is wrong because that is just the expected number of sixes on its own, without comparing it to the expected number of evens. Writing 150 is wrong because that is just the expected number of evens on its own, without subtracting the sixes. Writing 200 is wrong because it adds the two expected frequencies together (150 + 50 = 200) instead of finding the difference between them. The dice is expected to land on an even number 100 more times than on a six.
- (b) 0.49 — Adding all four pupils' flips gives 40 + 25 + 20 + 15 = 100 flips in total, and adding their heads gives 24 + 10 + 9 + 6 = 49 heads in total, so the combined estimate is 49/100 = 0.49. Writing 0.46 is wrong because it averages the four pupils' individual rates (0.60, 0.40, 0.45 and 0.40) as if they all came from the same number of flips, which they do not — this ignores that Sam and Priti flipped far more times than Leo and Fatima. Writing 0.60 is wrong because it only uses Sam's own result (24/40 = 0.60), ignoring the other three pupils. Writing 0.40 is wrong because it only combines Priti and Fatima's results (16/40 = 0.40), leaving out Sam and Leo entirely. The combined estimate from all four pupils is 0.49.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.