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) 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.
- (c) 90 — Method: over many future trials the expected number of successes is the number of trials multiplied by the probability of a success. Working: the sections are equal, so each is equally likely and P(red) is 3 out of 8. Over 240 spins the expected number of reds is 240 × 3 ÷ 8 = 90. Answer: about 90 of the spins would be expected to land on red. The distractors: 150 uses the 5 sections that are not red, 240 × 5 ÷ 8 = 150, which is the expected number of spins that do not land on red; 30 is 240 ÷ 8 and is the expected count for one single section; 80 comes from dividing by the number of red sections instead of by the number of sections, 240 ÷ 3 = 80.
- (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) 3/4 — Method: a card either is a diamond or is not a diamond, so those two outcomes form an exhaustive set and their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: P(diamond) = 1/4, so P(not a diamond) = 1 − 1/4; writing 1 as 4/4 gives 4/4 − 1/4. Answer: 3/4. The distractors: 1/4 comes from giving back the probability that the card is a diamond instead of its complement; 1/2 comes from reading 'not a diamond' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 3/52 comes from doing the subtraction 4 − 1 = 3 on the suits but then writing that 3 over the 52 cards in the pack instead of over the 4 suits.
- (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.
- (a) 1/3 — Method: for two independent spinners, multiply the probability of each separate outcome, but first work out each spinner's own probability correctly, using how many of its equal sections actually carry that result. Working: Spinner A has 2 even numbers, 2 and 4, out of 4 sections, so P(even) = 2/4 = 1/2. Spinner B has 2 red sections out of 3, so P(red) = 2/3. Multiplying gives 1/2 × 2/3, which cancels down to 1/3. Answer: 1/3. Watch out: writing down 1/4 treats Spinner B's two colours as equally likely and uses 1/2 for red, when in fact 2 of its 3 sections are red — the sections are not split evenly between the two colours. Writing down 1/6 undercounts Spinner A's even numbers as just one out of four instead of two. And writing down 5/6 applies the 'at least one' formula, P(A) + P(B) − P(A)×P(B), which answers a different question about EITHER spinner landing the right way, not both together.
- (d) 5/18 — Method: list every ordered pair of dice scores whose difference is 1, then divide by the 36 equally likely pairs. Working: the pairs with a difference of 1 are (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (3, 4), (4, 3), (4, 5), (5, 4), (5, 6) and (6, 5), which is 10 pairs out of 36, cancelling down to 5/18. Answer: 5/18. Watch out: writing down 5/36 lists only the 5 pairs going up, (1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 4), (4, 5) and (5, 6), and misses that each one has a matching pair the other way round, such as (2, 1) — the two dice are different objects, and order matters, so each of those 5 gaps counts twice. Writing down 1/6 treats the six possible differences, 0 to 5, as equally likely and picks 1 out of 6 of them, but a difference of 1 is reached by far more pairs of scores than a difference of 5 is, so the six differences are not equally likely. And writing down 1/4 comes from adding the two dice's outcome counts instead of multiplying them, 6 + 6 = 12, and grouping the six scores into just three non-overlapping pairs one apart, {1, 2}, {3, 4} and {5, 6}, giving 3 out of that wrong pool of 12.
- (b) Priya — The larger the number of trials, the closer a relative frequency tends to be to the true probability. Priya made 200 drops, more than Freya's 20, Malik's 50 or Tom's 80, so her relative frequency gives the best estimate. Freya's estimate is based on only 20 drops, the smallest sample, so it is the least reliable of the four. Malik's 50 drops and Tom's 80 drops are both larger than Freya's but still well short of Priya's 200.
- (b) 6/25 — The probability of winning on any one spin is 2/5, and the probability of losing on any one spin is 3/5. Since the spins are independent, multiply the probability of winning on the first spin by the probability of losing on the second spin: 2/5 × 3/5 = 6/25. A candidate who answers 4/25 has used the winning probability for both spins, 2/5 × 2/5. A candidate who answers 9/25 has used the losing probability for both spins, 3/5 × 3/5. A candidate who answers 3/10 has treated the spins as if they were dependent, reducing the second spin's denominator to 4.
- (c) No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6. — The theoretical probability of rolling a 6 on an ordinary dice is fixed at 1/6, worked out from the number of equally likely outcomes, and does not change however the dice is actually rolled. The relative frequency from this trial is 7/30, found from what happened in these particular 30 rolls. Since 7/30 and 1/6 are different numbers, the correct statement is 'No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6.' Assuming the two values must always match because they describe the same event gives 'Yes — relative frequency always equals theory.' Believing that an observed result redefines the theoretical probability gives 'Yes — the theoretical probability has now become 7/30.' Refusing to work out either value at all gives 'Neither can be found — 30 rolls is too few to tell', which ignores that both numbers CAN be calculated from the information given.
- (b) 5/12 — There are 36 equally likely ordered pairs. Listing the pairs where the red score is smaller than the blue score gives 15 outcomes, so the probability is 15/36 = 5/12. Choosing 1/2 comes from assuming the 36 outcomes split evenly between 'red smaller' and 'red bigger', which ignores the 6 outcomes where the two dice show the same score. Choosing 7/12 comes from including the outcomes where the two scores are equal, 15 + 6 = 21, giving 21/36 = 7/12, instead of using 'less than' strictly. Choosing 5/36 comes from counting only the outcomes where the two scores differ by exactly 1, such as (1, 2) and (2, 3), which is 5 outcomes, and missing the pairs that differ by more than 1.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 1/10 — Method: list every possible pair of subjects systematically, so that no pair is missed and no pair is counted twice, then compare the number of successful pairs with the size of the list. Working: pairing maths with each of the other four gives 4 pairs, physics with each subject after it gives 3, biology gives 2 and chemistry gives 1, so there are 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10 pairs. Exactly one of them is maths with biology. Answer: the probability is 1/10. The distractors: 1/5 comes from counting maths-then-biology and biology-then-maths as two separate successes while still dividing by the 10 unordered pairs; 1/15 comes from a list that also pairs each subject with itself, giving 15 entries instead of 10; 1/4 comes from working out the second step alone, that 1 of the 4 subjects left after maths is biology, without allowing for the chance that maths is picked at all.
- (b) likely — On the probability scale, 'certain' is reserved for a probability of exactly 1, and 'evens' describes a probability of exactly 0.5. A probability of 0.9 is high but not equal to 1, so the correct word is 'likely'. Choosing 'certain' treats a probability close to 1 as if it were exactly 1, which it is not. Choosing 'evens' misjudges 0.9 as being close to the midpoint of the scale, when it is close to the 'certain' end instead. Choosing 'unlikely' reads the scale the wrong way round, as if a high probability meant a low chance of happening.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.