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) 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) Game Y — 0.4 is greater than 3/8. — Converting 3/8 to a decimal gives 3 ÷ 8 = 0.375, and 0.4 is greater than 0.375, so game Y gives the better chance of winning: 'Game Y — 0.4 is greater than 3/8.' Comparing the numerator 3 to the digit 0 in front of the decimal point in 0.4 compares two unrelated numbers and gives 'Game X — 3 is greater than 0, the units digit of 0.4.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning more chances, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Game X — 3/8 has the larger denominator.' Rounding 0.375 to 0.4 to one decimal place makes the two values look equal, but they are not exactly equal, so 'Equal — 3/8 rounds to 0.4 to one decimal place' mistakes a rounded match for a true one.
- (b) 16 — Method: put the counts into a two-way table, complete the row totals, then subtract along the Year 11 row. Working: there are 60 students altogether and 35 are in Year 10, so the number in Year 11 is 60 − 35 = 25. Of those 25 students, 9 chose a sandwich, so the number who chose a hot meal is 25 − 9 = 16. Answer: 16 Year 11 students chose a hot meal. The distractors: 15 comes from subtracting along the Year 10 row instead, 35 − 20 = 15, which is the number of Year 10 hot meals; 25 is the Year 11 row total, written down before the sandwiches are taken off; 31 comes from working with the sandwich figures for the whole school, 60 − 20 − 9 = 31, which counts the Year 10 hot meals as well.
- (a) unlikely — 3/8 = 3 ÷ 8 = 0.375, which is between 0 and 0.5, so the probability is best described as unlikely. Rounding 3/8 loosely to 'about a half' without converting it properly leads to evens, which is wrong since 0.375 is noticeably below 0.5. Reading 3/8 as the complement and using 1 − 3/8 = 5/8 = 0.625 instead gives likely, but the question asks about the probability of 3/8 itself, not its complement. Flipping the fraction to 8/3 ≈ 2.67, which is impossible for a probability, and rounding it towards the top of the scale gives certain.
- (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) £100 — Method: find the expected number of wins, turn that into the expected pay out, then compare it with what the games cost. Working: the expected number of wins is 200 × 0.15 = 30. Each win pays £10, so the expected pay out is 30 × 10 = 300 pounds. Playing 200 times at £2 a go costs 200 × 2 = 400 pounds. The expected loss is 400 − 300 = 100 pounds. Answer: Amir should expect to be about £100 down. The distractors: £300 is the expected winnings on their own, with the cost of playing never taken off; £400 is the total cost of playing, with the winnings never taken off; £700 comes from adding the two totals, 400 + 300 = 700, instead of subtracting one from the other.
- (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) 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) 10 — There are 25 equally likely ordered pairs in total. Listing the pairs where the Spinner P score is less than the Spinner Q score gives 10 outcomes, running from (1, 2) up to (4, 5). Choosing 15 comes from also including the 5 pairs where the two scores are equal, such as (1, 1) and (2, 2), which do not satisfy 'less than'. Choosing 4 comes from counting only the outcomes where the scores differ by exactly 1, such as (1, 2) and (2, 3), and missing the pairs that differ by 2, 3 or 4. Choosing 20 comes from correctly excluding the 5 outcomes where the two scores are equal, 25 − 5 = 20, but forgetting to also exclude the outcomes where Spinner P is bigger than Spinner Q, rather than smaller.
- (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.
- (b) 1/12 — Method: the coin does not affect the dice, so the two events are independent and the probability that both happen is the product of their probabilities. Working: heads has probability 1/2 and a 6 on an ordinary dice has probability 1/6. Multiplying gives 1 on the top and 2 × 6 = 12 on the bottom. Answer: the probability is 1/12. The distractors: 2/3 comes from adding 1/2 and 1/6 instead of multiplying them; 1/6 comes from using the dice alone and ignoring the condition on the coin; 1/8 comes from counting the possible results as 6 + 2 = 8 and treating the winning result as one of those eight.
- (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.
- (a) 4/15 — Method: first find how many pupils travel only by car, then write that as a fraction of the 60 pupils surveyed. Working: pupils who walk or cycle or both = 32 + 24 − 12 = 44. Only by car = 60 − 44 = 16. P(only by car) = 16/60 = 4/15. Answer: 4/15. Watch out: writing down 1/5 takes the overlap of 12 pupils on its own, 12/60, mistaking the group who do both for the group who travel only by car. Writing down 4/5 comes from 60 − 12 = 48, subtracting only the overlap from the total instead of the whole walk-or-cycle count, so cyclists and walkers who are not in the overlap are wrongly swept into the only-car group. And writing down 7/15 comes from 60 − 32 = 28, subtracting the walkers alone and forgetting the cyclists altogether.
- (a) 5/8 — Winning, near-miss and losing are exhaustive, so the three probabilities sum to 1. Writing 1/4 as 2/8 so every fraction has the same denominator, 1 − 1/8 − 2/8 = 8/8 − 1/8 − 2/8 = 5/8. Subtracting only the winning probability and forgetting the near-miss probability gives 1 − 1/8 = 7/8. Subtracting only the near-miss probability and forgetting the winning probability gives 1 − 1/4 = 3/4. Adding the two given probabilities and stopping there gives 1/8 + 2/8 = 3/8, the probability that a ticket is winning or a near-miss, not the probability that it is losing.
- (a) Ben, because a larger sample is closer to the theory — Method: a relative frequency is an estimate of a probability, and for an unbiased experiment that estimate tends towards the theoretical value as the sample grows. Working: Priya's estimate rests on 50 results, so a few unexpected heads move it a long way; one extra head shifts her relative frequency by 1 ÷ 50 = 0.02. Ben's estimate rests on 500 results, where one extra head shifts his relative frequency by only 1 ÷ 500 = 0.002. The larger sample therefore swings far less around the true value. Answer: Ben's relative frequency is the one more likely to be close, because a larger unbiased sample tends closer to the theoretical probability. The distractors: saying a small sample is less affected by luck reverses the result, since it is the small sample that swings most; saying every flip is a separate random event is true of the flips themselves but says nothing about the estimates, and is often used to argue wrongly that the number of trials does not matter; saying 500 flips must give exactly 250 heads confuses an expected value with a guaranteed one, and 500 flips very rarely give exactly 250 heads.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.