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) 3 times as likely — Method: to say how many times as likely one event is as another, divide the larger probability by the smaller one; subtracting them gives the gap between the two probabilities, not the multiple. Working: both probabilities are counted in tenths, so 6/10 ÷ 2/10 compares 6 tenths with 2 tenths, and 6 ÷ 2 = 3. Answer: winning at the hoopla stall is 3 times as likely, which is why 6/10 sits three times as far along the 0 to 1 scale as 2/10. The distractors: 4 times as likely comes from subtracting the two counts, 6 − 2, instead of dividing them, which measures the gap rather than the multiple; 6 times as likely comes from reading the larger probability's 6 tenths straight off as the multiple without ever comparing it with the 2 tenths at the other stall; 12 times as likely comes from multiplying the two counts, 6 × 2, instead of dividing one by the other.
- (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) 50 — There are 180 − 100 = 80 south-plot gardeners. 30 of them do not grow organically, so the rest do: 80 − 30 = 50. Writing 64 is wrong because that is the number of NORTH-plot gardeners who grow organically, not south. Writing 30 again is wrong because that is the number of south-plot gardeners who do NOT grow organically — the question asks for those who do. Writing 80 is wrong because that is the whole south-plot total, without subtracting the 30 who do not grow organically. The answer is 50.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 1/20 — Method: add the counts on the faulty end branches, divide by the total number of items in the experiment, then cancel. Working: the faulty items number 15 + 5 = 20, and 400 items were checked, so the probability is 20/400. Dividing the top and the bottom by 20 gives 1/20. Answer: the probability is 1/20. The distractors: 3/50 is 15/250 and comes from dividing machine A's faults by machine A's output, which is that machine's own fault rate rather than the probability for the whole batch; 1/30 is 5/150 and does the same on machine B's branch; 19/20 is 380/400 and gives the probability that the item picked is not faulty.
- (c) 23 — Multiples of 4 from 1 to 30 are 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 28 — 7 numbers, so n(A) = 7. The universal set has 30 elements, so n(A′) = 30 − 7 = 23. Reporting n(A) itself, 7, without subtracting it from the universal set forgets what the complement means. Estimating the count of multiples of 4 as 30 ÷ 4 = 7.5, rounded to 8, instead of listing them exactly, gives 30 − 8 = 22. Miscounting the universal set as having 31 elements instead of 30, an off-by-one slip, gives 31 − 7 = 24.
- (d) 3/5 — The first tile drawn is a consonant with probability 4/5, since 4 of the 5 letters in MATHS are consonants. Since it is not replaced, 3 consonants remain out of the 4 tiles left, so the second tile is a consonant with probability 3/4. Multiplying gives 4/5 × 3/4 = 3/5. Choosing 4/5 comes from only using the probability for the first draw and forgetting the second draw changes once a tile is removed. Choosing 3/4 comes from only using the probability for the second draw on its own. Choosing 16/25 comes from treating the two draws as independent, using 4/5 × 4/5 = 16/25, which would only be correct if the first tile were replaced before the second draw.
- (d) No, because 3/8 + 5/12 + 1/6 = 23/24 — Using a common denominator of 24: 3/8 = 9/24, 5/12 = 10/24 and 1/6 = 4/24. Adding these numerators gives 9 + 10 + 4 = 23, so the three probabilities sum to 23/24, which is less than 1 — Zara is not correct. Adding the original numerators (3 + 5 + 1 = 9) over a denominator of 12 instead of converting each fraction properly gives 9/12 = 3/4, still less than 1 but the wrong fraction. Converting 1/6 to 5/24 instead of 4/24 (using the wrong scaling) makes the total 9/24 + 10/24 + 5/24 = 24/24 = 1, wrongly suggesting the probabilities are valid. Judging validity from the fact that each individual fraction lies between 0 and 1 ignores that an exhaustive set must sum to exactly 1, not merely contain valid individual values.
- (c) 0.65 — Overrunning and not overrunning are exhaustive: between them they cover every outcome, so their probabilities sum to 1. Work out 1 − 0.35 = 0.65. Writing 0.35 again is the probability that the appointment overruns, not its complement — the subtraction was never done. Adding instead of subtracting gives 1 + 0.35 = 1.35, which cannot be a probability at all. Subtracting each digit from 10 instead of borrowing from the 1, so 10 − 3 = 7 tenths and 10 − 5 = 5 hundredths, gives 0.75.
- (b) 1/4 — There are 4 × 4 = 16 equally likely ordered outcomes for the two dice. The pairs that total 5 are: first dice 1 with second dice 4; first dice 2 with second dice 3; first dice 3 with second dice 2; and first dice 4 with second dice 1 — which is 4 outcomes, so the probability is 4/16 = 1/4. A candidate who answers 1/8 has listed only 2 of the four pairs, forgetting that first dice 1 with second dice 4 and first dice 4 with second dice 1 are separate outcomes because the dice are different. A candidate who answers 3/16 has found 3 pairs instead of 4, missing one from the list. A candidate who answers 1/16 has counted only a single pair, such as first dice 2 with second dice 3, and treated the order of the dice as not mattering.
- (d) 1/15 — Method: a probability read from a frequency tree is the count at the end of the branch you want, divided by the total number in the whole experiment. Working: the branch for walking followed by the branch for being late ends with 6 pupils, and the experiment covers all 90 pupils, so the probability is 6/90. Dividing the top and the bottom by 6 gives 1/15. Answer: the probability is 1/15. The distractors: 3/25 is 6/50 and comes from dividing the 6 by the 50 walkers rather than by the whole group, which answers a different question about walkers only; 8/45 is 16/90 and comes from counting every late pupil, the 6 walkers and the 10 others together, instead of only the late walkers; 1/9 is 10/90 and comes from reading the late count on the branch for pupils who do not walk.
- (c) 10 — There are 5 possible cards and 2 possible coin results, so listing every pair gives 5 × 2 = 10 equally likely outcomes. Choosing 5 comes from listing only the card outcomes and forgetting the coin flip adds a second stage to each one. Choosing 7 comes from adding the two stages instead of combining them, 5 + 2 = 7, rather than pairing every card with every coin result. Choosing 20 comes from counting each coin result twice for every card, 5 × 2 × 2 = 20, effectively pairing every card with the coin twice over.
- (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) 26 — Method: n(G ∪ H) = n(G) + n(H) − n(G ∩ H), taking off the overlap once so the pupils who study both subjects are not counted twice. Working: 19 + 15 − 8 = 26. Answer: 26. Watch out: adding 19 and 15 without taking off the overlap gives 34, which counts the 8 pupils who study both subjects twice. Taking the 8 off both totals before adding, 19 − 8 + 15 − 8 = 18, counts only the pupils who study exactly one of the two subjects and leaves out the 8 who study both. And writing down 11, which is 19 − 8, gives the number who study geography only, not the number who study geography or history or both.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.