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
- (d) 0.80 — Evens is exactly halfway along the scale, at 0.5, and 3/10 written as a decimal is 0.3. A probability 3/10 higher than evens is 0.5 + 0.3 = 0.80. Giving 0.30 as the answer converts the increase but never adds it to the value of evens. Adding the increase to 1, the 'certain' end of the scale, instead of to evens gives 1 + 0.3 = 1.30, which cannot be a probability. Writing 3/10 as 0.03 instead of 0.3, a place-value slip, gives 0.5 + 0.03 = 0.53.
- (c) 3/8 — Method: write out every result of the three coins as a string of three letters, H for heads and T for tails, count the results that match the description and divide by how many results the list holds. Working: each coin lands two ways and no coin affects another, so the list holds 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 equally likely results. Exactly two heads means one coin lands on tails and the other two on heads, so the results are HHT, HTH and THH — 3 of the 8. Answer: the probability is 3/8. The distractors: 4/8 comes from reading 'exactly two heads' as 'at least two heads' and counting HHH as well; 2/8 comes from a list made without a system, in which HHT and THH are written down and HTH, the result with the tail between the two heads, is missed; 6/8 comes from counting 3 × 2 = 6 ways of picking which two of the three coins show heads, which counts every pair of coins twice, once in each order.
- (a) 43/70 — There are 140 − 85 = 55 Zone B households, and 55 − 21 = 34 of them recycle glass. In total, 52 + 34 = 86 households recycle glass, out of 140: 86/140 = 43/70. Writing 13/35 is wrong because 52/140 simplifies to 13/35, and 52 only counts Zone A, leaving out the 34 Zone B recyclers. Writing 17/70 is wrong because 34/140 simplifies to 17/70, and 34 only counts Zone B, leaving out the 52 Zone A recyclers. Writing 73/140 is wrong because it adds the 52 Zone A recyclers to the 21 Zone B households that do NOT recycle, mixing up two different groups instead of adding the two recycling groups. The probability is 43/70.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 325 — Method: first find the relative frequency of NOT landing on red from the 200 spins, then scale that up to 500 spins. Working: non-red results = 50 + 80 = 130, out of 200 spins, so P(not red) = 130 ÷ 200 = 0.65. Expected non-red results in 500 spins = 500 × 0.65 = 325. Answer: 325. Watch out: writing down 175 finds the expected number of RED results instead, 70 ÷ 200 × 500 = 175, answering the opposite of what was asked. Writing down 250 assumes landing red or not landing red must be a fair 50-50 split, but the spinner is biased and the actual results do not split evenly. And writing down 130 stops after finding how many of the 200 spins were non-red and forgets to scale that figure up to the 500 spins asked for.
- (c) 1/3 — Method: list the scores that satisfy the condition, count them and write that count over the total number of equally likely scores, then simplify. Working: the scores greater than 4 are 5 and 6, so 2 of the 6 equally likely scores qualify, giving 2/6. Answer: 2/6 cancels to 1/3. The distractors: 2/3 comes from giving the probability that the score is not greater than 4, the complement rather than the event asked for; 1/6 comes from giving the probability of one particular qualifying score; 1/2 comes from reading 'greater than 4' as '4 or more' and counting 4, 5 and 6, which gives 3/6.
- (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.
- (d) 1/5 — Method: list the pairs systematically, work out each total, then count the pairs that meet the condition and compare that count with the length of the list. Working: the pairs and their totals are 1 and 2 giving 3, 1 and 3 giving 4, 1 and 4 giving 5, 1 and 5 giving 6, 2 and 3 giving 5, 2 and 4 giving 6, 2 and 5 giving 7, 3 and 4 giving 7, 3 and 5 giving 8, and 4 and 5 giving 9. That is 10 pairs, of which 2 have a total of more than 7. Answer: the probability is 1/5. The distractors: 2/5 comes from counting the totals of exactly 7 as well, reading 'more than 7' as '7 or more'; 1/10 comes from finding only the pair 4 and 5 and missing that 3 and 5 also beat 7; 4/5 comes from counting the pairs on the wrong side of the condition, the 8 pairs whose total is 7 or less.
- (b) 39 — Method: put the counts into a two-way table and fill each missing cell by subtracting along a row or down a column. Working: the number of female members is 150 − 80 = 70. The pool column holds 66 members and 35 of them are male, so the number of female pool users is 66 − 35 = 31. Subtracting along the female row, 70 − 31 = 39 female members use the gym. Answer: 39 female members use the gym. The distractors: 45 comes from subtracting along the male row instead, 80 − 35 = 45, which counts male gym users; 31 is the female pool cell, written down one step before the gym cell; 84 is 150 − 66 and counts every gym user, male and female together.
- (a) 80 — Method: list the outcomes that count as a success, write the probability from them, then multiply by the number of rolls. Working: the scores of 3 or more are 3, 4, 5 and 6, which is 4 of the 6 equally likely scores, so the probability is 4/6, which cancels to 2/3. Over 120 rolls the expected number is 120 × 2 ÷ 3 = 80. Answer: about 80 of the rolls would be expected to give 3 or more. The distractors: 60 comes from reading a score of 3 or more as a score above 3 and counting only 4, 5 and 6, giving 120 × 3 ÷ 6 = 60; 40 is the expected number of rolls that are not 3 or more, 120 × 2 ÷ 6 = 40; 20 is 120 ÷ 6 and is the expected count for one single score.
- (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) 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) 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) 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.