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) 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.
- (a) 50 — To find the number of shots needed for an expected 12 hits, divide the number of hits wanted by the probability of a hit: 12 ÷ 0.24 = 50. Multiplying the number of hits by the probability instead of dividing gives 12 × 0.24 = 2.88, which rounds to 3 shots. Rounding 0.24 to 0.25 before dividing gives 12 ÷ 0.25 = 48. Using the probability of missing, 1 − 0.24 = 0.76, instead of the probability of hitting, gives 12 ÷ 0.76 = 15.79, which rounds to 16.
- (c) 3/16 — The probability that Priya misses a shot is 1 − 3/4 = 1/4. The two shots are independent, so multiply the probability of scoring the first shot by the probability of missing the second shot: 3/4 × 1/4 = 3/16. Choosing 9/16 comes from using the probability of scoring, 3/4, for both shots instead of switching to the miss probability for the second shot, 3/4 × 3/4 = 9/16, which is the probability that she scores with both shots. Choosing 1/2 comes from subtracting the two probabilities instead of multiplying them, 3/4 − 1/4 = 1/2. Choosing 3/4 comes from giving only the probability that she scores with the first shot, forgetting to combine it with what happens on the second shot.
- (b) £13.50 — The total cost of Nadia's 25 tickets is 25 × £1.50 = £37.50. The expected number of winning tickets is 25 × 0.12 = 3, so the expected prize money is 3 × £8 = £24.00. Nadia's expected loss is the cost minus the expected prize money: £37.50 − £24.00 = £13.50. A candidate who answers £24.00 has given the expected prize money and mistaken it for the loss. A candidate who answers £37.50 has given the total cost of the tickets, forgetting to subtract the expected prize money. A candidate who answers £34.50 has subtracted the expected number of wins, 3, from the cost instead of first converting it to prize money by multiplying by £8.
- (b) 57/100 — Pooling both trials: total heads = 24 + 33 = 57, total flips = 40 + 60 = 100, so the combined relative frequency is 57/100, which is already in its simplest form since 57 and 100 share no common factor. Averaging the two separate relative frequencies instead, (24/40 + 33/60) ÷ 2 = (0.6 + 0.55) ÷ 2 = 0.575 = 23/40, treats the two trials as equally weighted even though Ben made more flips, which is not correct. Using only Leah's data gives 24/40 = 3/5. Using only Ben's data gives 33/60 = 11/20.
- (c) The green bag (7/24) — Method: fractions can only be ordered once they share a denominator, so rewrite all four over the lowest common denominator and compare the numerators. Working: the lowest common denominator of 12, 8, 24 and 3 is 24, and scaling gives 5/12 = 10/24, 3/8 = 9/24, 7/24 stays as it is, and 1/3 = 8/24; the numerators are then 10, 9, 7 and 8. Answer: the smallest numerator is 7, so the green bag, with 7/24, is the least likely and sits furthest to the left on the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: the red bag (5/12) comes from finding the largest of the four probabilities instead of the smallest; the blue bag (3/8) comes from scaling 3/8 by changing only the denominator to 24, which turns it into 3/24 and makes it look the smallest; the yellow bag (1/3) comes from comparing numerators alone and assuming the fraction with the numerator 1 must be the smallest.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 1/16 — The two spins are independent, so multiply the probability of blue on each spin: 1/4 × 1/4 = 1/16. Choosing 1/2 comes from adding the two probabilities instead of multiplying, 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2. Choosing 1/8 comes from wrongly treating the second spin as having a 1/2 chance of blue instead of the given 1/4, giving 1/4 × 1/2 = 1/8. Choosing 1/4 comes from giving the probability for a single spin and forgetting that the spinner is spun twice.
- (b) 40% — 32 out of the 80 people chose Coffee, so the percentage is (32 ÷ 80) × 100 = 40%. Choosing 32% comes from treating 32 as if it were already a percentage out of 100, instead of dividing by the actual total of 80 people surveyed. Choosing 25% comes from using the Tea row instead of the Coffee row, (20 ÷ 80) × 100 = 25%. Choosing 20% comes from using the Juice row instead of the Coffee row, (16 ÷ 80) × 100 = 20%.
- (a) 1/5 — Method: find the probability that the counter is black, then use the fact that an event and its complement add to 1. Working: there are 2 + 8 = 10 counters, so P(black) = 8/10 = 4/5; the complement is 1 − 4/5, and writing 1 as 5/5 gives 5/5 − 4/5. Answer: 1/5. The distractors: 4/5 comes from giving the probability that the counter is black instead of its complement; 1/2 comes from assuming the two colours are equally likely because there are only two of them; 1/4 comes from writing the 2 white counters over the 8 black counters rather than over all 10 counters.
- (b) 8/52 — Method: a card cannot be an ace and a king at the same time, so the two events are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added, keeping the denominator the same. Working: P(ace) = 4/52 and P(king) = 4/52, so P(ace or king) = 4/52 + 4/52, and 4 + 4 = 8 fifty-seconds. Answer: 8/52. The distractors: 4/52 comes from giving the probability of just one of the two events and forgetting to add the other; 16/52 comes from multiplying the two counts, 4 × 4, instead of adding them; 1/52 comes from giving the probability of one particular named card rather than any of the eight.
- (b) 0.150 — The six scores are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1. The probability of not landing on 6 is 1 − 0.25 = 0.75, and this is shared equally between the other five scores, so each has probability 0.75 ÷ 5 = 0.150. Giving 0.750 as the answer stops after finding the probability of not landing on 6, without sharing it out between the five remaining scores. Dividing 0.75 by 6 instead of by 5 gives 0.125, wrongly including the score of 6 among the equally likely scores. Ignoring the bias completely and dividing 1 by all six scores gives 1 ÷ 6 = 0.167.
- (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.
- (c) 0.512 — Method: independent events that must all happen are combined by multiplying their probabilities. Working: the first two questions give 0.8 × 0.8 = 0.64. Bringing in the third gives 0.64 × 0.8, and since 64 × 8 = 512 with three decimal places in the product, this is 0.512. Answer: the probability is 0.512. The distractors: 0.64 comes from multiplying only two of the three probabilities and stopping; 0.8 comes from reading 'independent' as meaning the probability never changes and writing down the single-question figure; 0.0512 comes from a place-value slip in the last multiplication, counting four decimal places instead of three.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.