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
- (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.
- (d) 9 — Method: each of the first spin's 3 outcomes can be paired with each of the second spin's 3 outcomes, so the two counts are multiplied together. Working: 3 × 3 = 9 ordered pairs. Answer: 9. Watch out: writing down 6 comes either from adding the two spins' counts, 3 + 3, instead of multiplying them, or from listing colour pairs without order, treating (red, blue) as the same entry as (blue, red) — both shortcuts miss outcomes that the ordered list contains. Writing down 3 lists only a single spin's outcomes and never pairs the two spins up at all. And writing down 27 treats the spinner as though it had been spun three times, 3 × 3 × 3, one spin too many.
- (c) 28 — Reading only is 22 − 6 = 16, and gaming only is 18 − 6 = 12, so exactly one of the two is 16 + 12 = 28. Adding 22 and 18 without removing the 6 who like both, 22 + 18 = 40, counts those 6 students twice. Giving 6 mistakes the number who like both for the number who like exactly one. Finding 22 + 18 − 6 = 34 gives the number who like at least one of reading or gaming, but stops there instead of also removing the 6 who like both to leave only those who like exactly one.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 0.420 — Method: use the relative frequency worked out from the larger number of trials as the best estimate of the probability, since a bigger sample tends to sit closer to the true probability. Working: 84 out of 200 drops land open end up, so the relative frequency from the total is 84 ÷ 200 = 0.420. Answer: 0.420. Watch out: writing down 0.650 comes from 13 ÷ 20, using only the first, much smaller sample instead of the total. Writing down 0.535 comes from averaging 0.650 and 0.420, treating the 20-drop run and the 200-drop run as equally reliable instead of using the larger sample on its own. And writing down 0.580 comes from 1 − 0.420, working out the probability that the bottle top lands the other way up instead of open end up.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 0.31 — Method: a late bus can be reached along two paths of the tree. Multiply along each path, then add the paths that end in a late bus. Working: the rain path gives 0.3 × 0.8 = 0.24. No rain has probability 1 − 0.3 = 0.7, so the second path gives 0.7 × 0.1 = 0.07. Adding the two paths gives 0.24 + 0.07. Answer: the probability is 0.31. The distractors: 0.9 comes from adding the two branch probabilities 0.8 and 0.1 without first weighting them by how often it rains; 0.24 comes from following the rain path only and ignoring that the bus can also be late when it is dry; 0.27 comes from using 0.3 at the start of both paths, so that the no-rain path is given 0.3 × 0.1 instead of 0.7 × 0.1.
- (b) 200 — Method: list the equally likely outcomes for the two coins before writing any probability, then multiply by the number of throws. Working: the equally likely outcomes are head then head, head then tail, tail then head, and tail then tail, so there are 4 of them. Two of those 4 give one head and one tail, so the probability is 2/4, which is 1/2. Over 400 throws the expected number is 400 × 1 ÷ 2 = 200. Answer: about 200 of the throws would be expected to give one head and one tail. The distractors: 133 comes from treating two heads, two tails and one of each as three equally likely results and working out 400 ÷ 3 = 133.3, then rounding; 100 comes from counting only head then tail as a success, giving 400 × 1 ÷ 4 = 100; 300 is the expected number of throws that do not give two heads, 400 × 3 ÷ 4 = 300.
- (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) 300 — Expected number = probability × number of trials = 0.15 × 2,000 = 300. Moving the decimal point one place too far, using 0.015 instead of 0.15, gives 2,000 × 0.015 = 30. Working out the expected number of letters that are NOT bills, using the complement 1 − 0.15 = 0.85, gives 2,000 × 0.85 = 1,700. Rounding 0.15 up to 0.2 before multiplying gives 2,000 × 0.2 = 400.
- (c) 0.6 — Method: no two of these ways of travelling can happen on the same day, so they are mutually exclusive and the probability that one of them happens is the sum of their probabilities; they need not add to 1, because travelling by car is a fourth way. Working: 0.2 + 0.3 = 0.5, and 0.5 + 0.1 = 0.6, the decimal points lined up at each step. Answer: 0.6, which also shows that the probability of being taken by car is 0.4, since all four ways together must make 1. The distractors: 0.4 comes from carrying on past the question and giving the probability of the remaining way, by car; 0.5 comes from adding only the bus and the bike and leaving the smallest of the three probabilities out of the total; 0.006 comes from multiplying the three probabilities together instead of adding them.
- (d) 1/12 — Method: list the full possibility space of sandwich-and-drink pairs, then divide the one matching pair by the size of the whole space. Working: there are 3 × 4 = 12 equally likely sandwich-and-drink pairs, and exactly one of them is egg and water. Answer: 1/12. Watch out: writing down 1/7 comes from adding the two counts, 3 + 4 = 7, instead of multiplying them to build the possibility space. Writing down 1/3 uses only the chance of choosing egg out of 3 sandwiches and ignores the drink altogether. And writing down 1/4 uses only the chance of choosing water out of 4 drinks and ignores the sandwich altogether.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.