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) 1/6 — Method: list the ordered pairs where the two scores match, and divide by the 36 equally likely pairs. Working: the matching pairs are (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), (4, 4), (5, 5) and (6, 6), which is 6 pairs out of 36, cancelling down to 1/6. Answer: 1/6. Watch out: writing down 1/36 finds the probability of one particular double, such as (6, 6), rather than any double at all. Guessing 1/2 treats 'same' and 'different' as equally likely events, when there are only 6 matching pairs against 30 non-matching ones. And writing down 1/3 comes from listing each double twice, once for each order of the two dice, giving 12 pairs out of 36 — but (1, 1) is a single outcome, and swapping the two dice over does not produce a second one.
- (d) 4 — Method: list the elements of each set in full, then find which elements appear in both lists — that is A ∩ B. Working: factors of 12 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12}. Factors of 18 = {1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18}. The elements in both lists are 1, 2, 3 and 6, so A ∩ B = {1, 2, 3, 6} and n(A ∩ B) = 4. Answer: 4. Watch out: writing down 6 gives n(A), the size of the factors-of-12 list on its own, not the size of the overlap. Writing down 8 comes from counting every element that appears in EITHER list, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 18 — that is the union, a different set from the intersection. And writing down 3 misses that 1 is a factor of both 12 and 18, and so belongs in A ∩ B alongside 2, 3 and 6.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 19/100 — It is easier to first find the probability that NEITHER component is faulty, then subtract from 1. The probability a component is not faulty is 9/10, so the probability neither is faulty is 9/10 × 9/10 = 81/100. So the probability at least one is faulty is 1 − 81/100 = 19/100. Choosing 1/5 comes from adding the two probabilities of a fault instead, 1/10 + 1/10 = 1/5, which double-counts the case where both are faulty. Choosing 1/10 comes from giving the probability for just one component being faulty. Choosing 1/100 comes from squaring the probability of a fault directly, 1/10 × 1/10 = 1/100, which is actually the probability that BOTH are faulty, not at least one.
- (d) unlikely and evens — The marked points are impossible (0), unlikely (0.25), evens (0.5) and certain (1). Since 0.25 < 0.3 < 0.5, the probability 0.3 lies between unlikely and evens. Choosing 'impossible and unlikely' treats 0.3 as below 0.25, which it is not. Choosing 'evens and certain' treats 0.3 as above 0.5, which it is not. Choosing 'impossible and evens' skips over the unlikely marker altogether, even though 0.3 is above it.
- (b) 0.15 — Method: success and failure are the only two outcomes of the task, so they form an exhaustive set and their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 1.00 so that both numbers have two decimal places gives 1.00 − 0.85; exchanging once, the hundredths give 10 − 5 = 5 and the tenths, now 9, give 9 − 8 = 1. Answer: 0.15, close to the left-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because the machine nearly always succeeds. The distractors: 0.85 comes from giving back the probability of success instead of the probability of failure; 0.25 comes from taking each decimal column from 10 on its own in 1.00 − 0.85, writing 10 − 5 = 5 in the hundredths and 10 − 8 = 2 in the tenths instead of reducing the tenths to 9 after the exchange; 0.5 comes from assuming that success and failure must be equally likely because there are only two outcomes.
- (b) 10 — Method: A′ means everything in the universal set that is NOT in A, so n(A′) = n(universal set) − n(A). Working: the universal set has 15 elements. A = {3, 6, 9, 12, 15}, so n(A) = 5. n(A′) = 15 − 5 = 10. Answer: 10. Watch out: writing down 5 gives n(A) itself, the size of the multiples-of-3 set, which is the opposite of its complement. Writing down 11 comes from missing 15 off the list of multiples of 3, treating A as only {3, 6, 9, 12}, so A is undercounted as 4 and A′ is overstated as 15 − 4. And writing down 12 comes from only listing the multiples of 3 up to 9 — 3, 6 and 9 — and missing that 12 and 15 also belong to A, undercounting A as 3 rather than 5.
- (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%.
- (b) 120 — Purple's probability is its angle out of the full circle: 144° ÷ 360° = 2/5. Expected number on purple = 2/5 × 300 = 120. Assuming the three colours are equally likely, ignoring their different angles, gives 300 ÷ 3 = 100. Using orange's angle, 90°, instead of purple's 144° gives a probability of 1/4, so 300 × 1/4 = 75. Treating 144 as a percentage instead of finding its fraction of 360° gives 300 × 0.144 = 43.2, which rounds to 43.
- (a) 1276 — Method: an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the theoretical probability as the number of trials increases, so use the record resting on the most trials, then multiply by the number of new trials. Working: the three records rest on 50, 200 and 1000 drops, so the most reliable is the one after 1000 drops, namely 0.638, and the run is indeed settling as the trials increase. The expected number of point up landings in 2000 further drops is 2000 × 0.638 = 1276. Answer: about 1276 times. The distractors: 1440 uses the earliest record, which rests on only 50 drops, giving 2000 × 0.720 = 1440; 1330 uses the middle record, treating 200 drops as a safe compromise when 1000 drops is better still, giving 2000 × 0.665 = 1330; 1348 comes from averaging the three records, since 0.720 + 0.665 + 0.638 = 2.023 and 2.023 ÷ 3 = 0.674, then 2000 × 0.674 = 1348, which gives the 50 drop record the same weight as the 1000 drop record.
- (b) 24/125 — On the fiction branch, 160 − 112 = 48 books were returned late. None of the non-fiction books were late, so the total number of late books is 48, out of 250 books altogether: 48/250 = 24/125. Writing 3/10 is wrong because it divides the 48 late fiction books by the fiction total (160) instead of the whole library total (250). Writing 56/125 is wrong because 112/250 simplifies to 56/125, and 112 is the number of fiction books returned ON TIME, not late. Writing 9/25 is wrong because 90/250 simplifies to 9/25, and 90 is simply the number of non-fiction books, which has nothing to do with late returns. The probability is 24/125.
- (a) 3/10 — Germinating and not germinating are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: 1 − 7/10 = 3/10. Writing 7/10 again gives the probability that the plant DOES germinate, not its complement. Putting the difference 10 − 7 = 3 over the original numerator instead of the original denominator gives 3/7. Inverting the correct answer, swapping its numerator and denominator, gives 10/3, which is impossible as a probability since it is greater than 1.
- (a) 1/12 — The probability that the first dice shows a 6 is 1/6. The probability that the second dice shows an even number, 2, 4 or 6, is 3/6 = 1/2. Since the two dice are independent, multiply the probabilities: 1/6 × 1/2 = 1/12. A candidate who answers 1/6 has considered only the first dice and forgotten the condition on the second dice. A candidate who answers 1/2 has considered only the second dice and forgotten the condition on the first dice. A candidate who answers 1/36 has treated 'an even number' as a single specific value rather than three possible values, using 1/6 × 1/6.
- (d) 12 — Method: each result of the first experiment can be paired with every result of the second, so the two counts are combined by multiplying. Working: the coin lands in 2 ways and the dice lands in 6 ways. Each of the 6 dice scores can appear with a head or with a tail, so the table has 6 × 2 rows. Answer: there are 12 different results. The distractors: 8 comes from adding the two counts, 6 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 6 comes from listing the dice scores only and treating the coin as making no difference to the table; 36 comes from working out 6 × 6, counting the coin as though it too had six equally likely results.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.