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) 41/160 — In total, 27 + 14 = 41 of the 160 employees cycle to work, so the probability is 41/160 (41 and 160 share no common factor, so this is already in its simplest form). Writing 27/160 is wrong because it only counts the full-time cyclists and leaves out the 14 part-time cyclists. Writing 41/90 is wrong because it uses the full-time total (90) as the denominator instead of the whole survey (160). Writing 1/5 is wrong because it only uses the part-time branch, simplifying 14/70 to 1/5 and ignoring the full-time cyclists completely. The probability is 41/160.
- (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) 0.49 — The two rounds are independent, so multiply the probability of losing each round: 0.7 × 0.7 = 0.49. Choosing 0.7 comes from giving the probability of losing just one round, forgetting there are two rounds to combine. Choosing 1.4 comes from adding the two probabilities instead of multiplying, 0.7 + 0.7 = 1.4. Choosing 0.09 comes from using the probability of WINNING instead of losing, 0.3 × 0.3 = 0.09.
- (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.
- (d) 0.80 — Evens is exactly halfway along the scale, at 0.5, and 3/10 written as a decimal is 0.3. A probability 3/10 higher than evens is 0.5 + 0.3 = 0.80. Giving 0.30 as the answer converts the increase but never adds it to the value of evens. Adding the increase to 1, the 'certain' end of the scale, instead of to evens gives 1 + 0.3 = 1.30, which cannot be a probability. Writing 3/10 as 0.03 instead of 0.3, a place-value slip, gives 0.5 + 0.03 = 0.53.
- (c) 24 — Silver, bronze and copper cover every counter, so their probabilities sum to 1: P(copper) = 1 − 1/2 − 1/8 = 3/8. Number of copper counters = 3/8 × 64 = 24. Multiplying the silver probability by 64 gives 32, the number of silver counters, not copper. Multiplying the bronze probability by 64 gives 8, the number of bronze counters. Adding the silver and bronze probabilities (1/2 + 1/8 = 5/8) and multiplying by 64 gives 40, the combined number of silver and bronze counters, not the copper count.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 30 — The numbers less than 4 are 1, 2 and 3, so the probability of that event is 3/6, and the expected count in 90 rolls is 90 × 3/6 = 45. The probability of rolling a 6 is 1/6, and the expected count is 90 × 1/6 = 15. The difference between the two expected counts is 45 − 15 = 30. A candidate who answers 45 has given the expected count for 'less than 4' only, forgetting to subtract the other expected count. A candidate who answers 15 has given the expected count for '6' only. A candidate who answers 36 has used a dice with 5 possible numbers instead of 6, giving 90 × 3/5 = 54 and 90 × 1/5 = 18, a difference of 36.
- (c) 45 — Three of the ten numbers (8, 9 and 10) are greater than 7, so the probability is 3/10, and 150 × 3/10 = 45. Writing 105 is wrong because 150 × 7/10 = 105 uses the seven numbers that are NOT greater than 7 (1 to 7), the opposite of what is asked. Writing 60 is wrong because it counts 7, 8, 9 and 10 as four numbers greater than 7, wrongly including 7 itself: 150 × 4/10 = 60. Writing 50 is wrong because 150 ÷ 3 = 50 divides by the count of favourable numbers instead of multiplying by the correct fraction of the spinner. The expected number of spins landing on a number greater than 7 is 45.
- (a) 60 — Method: because the counter goes back each time, every draw is the same experiment, so the expected number of reds is the number of draws multiplied by P(red). Working: there are 8 red counters out of 20, so P(red) = 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4. Over 150 draws the expected number of reds is 150 × 0.4 = 60. Answer: about 60 red counters would be expected. The distractors: 90 uses P(blue) by mistake, 150 × 12 ÷ 20 = 90; 100 comes from writing the probability from the red to blue ratio of 8 to 12, giving 150 × 8 ÷ 12 = 100; 75 comes from treating red and blue as equally likely because there are two colours, which gives 150 ÷ 2 = 75.
- (a) 1/12 — Method: for draws with nothing put back, multiply the probabilities of the three draws, reducing both the number of red counters and the total each time a red counter is removed. Working: the first counter is red with probability 5/10. One red counter has gone, so the second is red with probability 4/9, and then the third is red with probability 3/8. Multiplying gives 60/720. Answer: the probability is 1/12. The distractors: 1/8 comes from using 5/10 three times, which is what happens only if each counter is put back; 2/9 comes from stopping after two draws and giving 5/10 × 4/9; 3/50 comes from taking one off the red count each time but leaving the total at 10, giving 5/10 × 4/10 × 3/10.
- (b) 11/12 — Method: raining and not raining are the only two outcomes, so their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 12/12 gives 12/12 − 1/12, and only the numerators are subtracted, 12 − 1 = 11. Answer: 11/12, close to the right-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because rain is unlikely. The distractors: 1/12 comes from giving back the probability that it does rain; 1/11 comes from subtracting the 1 from the denominator instead of subtracting the fraction from 1; 11/11 comes from subtracting 1 from the numerator and from the denominator of 12/12 rather than from the numerator alone.
- (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%.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.