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
- (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.
- (a) 0.54 — The four colours are exhaustive, so all four probabilities sum to 1: the probability of damson is 1 − 0.18 − 0.22 − 0.24 = 0.36. Amber and damson cannot both happen on one spin, so the probability of amber or damson is 0.18 + 0.36 = 0.54. Stopping after finding the probability of damson alone, without adding the probability of amber, gives 0.36. Adding the three given probabilities together, 0.18 + 0.22 + 0.24 = 0.64, and treating that total as the answer never finds the probability of damson at all. Subtracting only the probability of amber from 1, 1 − 0.18 = 0.82, ignores black, cyan and damson completely.
- (d) 15/64 — Method: because the first marble is put back, the second draw is made from the same 8 marbles, so the two draws are independent and their probabilities are multiplied. Working: the bag holds 8 marbles both times, so yellow first has probability 5/8 and blue second has probability 3/8. Multiplying fractions gives 5 × 3 = 15 on the top and 8 × 8 = 64 on the bottom. Answer: the probability is 15/64. The distractors: 9/64 comes from working out the probability that BOTH marbles are blue, 3/8 × 3/8, instead of one of each colour in the stated order; 15/16 comes from multiplying the numerators but adding the denominators; 5/8 comes from writing down the first draw only and never combining it with the second.
- (a) 80 — Method: list the outcomes that count as a success, write the probability from them, then multiply by the number of rolls. Working: the scores of 3 or more are 3, 4, 5 and 6, which is 4 of the 6 equally likely scores, so the probability is 4/6, which cancels to 2/3. Over 120 rolls the expected number is 120 × 2 ÷ 3 = 80. Answer: about 80 of the rolls would be expected to give 3 or more. The distractors: 60 comes from reading a score of 3 or more as a score above 3 and counting only 4, 5 and 6, giving 120 × 3 ÷ 6 = 60; 40 is the expected number of rolls that are not 3 or more, 120 × 2 ÷ 6 = 40; 20 is 120 ÷ 6 and is the expected count for one single score.
- (b) She is wrong; 12 rolls is too few to judge — Method: compare the result with what is expected, then ask whether the experiment is long enough for a difference to mean anything. Working: if the dice were fair the expected number of sixes in 12 rolls is 12 × 1 ÷ 6 = 2, so 4 sixes is 2 above what was expected. But over only 12 rolls a result like this turns up often by chance: the relative frequency here is 4/12, which is 1/3, and over so few trials a relative frequency can sit well away from 1/6 with no bias at all. Answer: Erin is wrong, because 12 rolls is far too few to decide; she should roll the dice many more times and see whether the relative frequency settles near 1/6. The distractors: saying she is right because 4 beats the expected 2 uses the correct expected value but treats any difference as proof, which so short an experiment cannot give; saying a fair dice gives each score twice in 12 rolls treats an expected value as a guaranteed one; saying that 4 sixes in 12 rolls cancels down to 1 in 6 mis-cancels the fraction, because 4/12 is 1/3, which is twice 1/6, so that comment reaches the right verdict from arithmetic that is wrong.
- (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.
- (a) 5/9 — Method: a bead cannot be two colours at once, so white and purple are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added over the common total. Working: there are 1 + 4 + 4 = 9 beads, so P(white) = 1/9 and P(purple) = 4/9; adding gives 1/9 + 4/9, and 1 + 4 = 5 ninths. Answer: 5/9. The distractors: 4/9 comes from giving the probability of a purple bead alone and forgetting to include the white one; 5/8 comes from counting 5 favourable beads but using 8 as the total, leaving the single white bead out of the count of the box; 5/18 comes from adding 1/9 and 4/9 by adding the denominators as well as the numerators.
- (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.
- (d) 3/5 — 'Chosen from the boys' restricts the sample space to the 45 boys, of whom 27 walk. So the probability is 27/45 = 3/5. Using all 80 students as the denominator instead of just the boys gives 27/80, which is the probability that a student chosen from everyone is a boy who walks — not what was asked. Using the 18 boys who do NOT walk (45 − 27) as the numerator instead of the 27 who do gives 18/45 = 2/5. Dividing the 27 walking boys by the number of girls (80 − 45 = 35) instead of by the number of boys gives 27/35.
- (b) 40% — Method: a fraction becomes a percentage by scaling it so that its denominator is 100, or equivalently by dividing the numerator by the denominator and multiplying the decimal by 100. Working: 5 × 20 = 100, so the numerator is scaled by 20 as well, 2 × 20 = 40, giving 40/100; the same figure comes from 2 ÷ 5 = 0.4 and 0.4 × 100 = 40. Answer: 40%. The distractors: 20% comes from dividing 100 by the denominator alone, 100 ÷ 5 = 20, which is the percentage for 1/5 and never uses the numerator 2; 4% comes from finding the decimal 0.4 correctly and then writing the 4 down as the percentage instead of multiplying by 100; 2% comes from scaling only the denominator up to 100 and leaving the numerator as it was, giving 2/100.
- (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) 160 — Expected number = probability × number of trials = 0.08 × 2,000 = 160. Moving the decimal point one place too far, using 0.008 instead of 0.08, gives 2,000 × 0.008 = 16. Working out the expected number of customers who do NOT buy a bag, using the complement 1 − 0.08 = 0.92, gives 2,000 × 0.92 = 1,840. Rounding 0.08 up to 0.1 before multiplying gives 2,000 × 0.1 = 200.
- (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%.
- (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) 1/6 — There are 2 outcomes for the coin and 3 outcomes for the spinner, giving 2 × 3 = 6 equally likely pairs: (H,X), (H,Y), (H,Z), (T,X), (T,Y), (T,Z). Only one of these, (H,Z), matches both conditions, so the probability is 1/6. A candidate who answers 1/3 has listed only the spinner's 3 outcomes and ignored the coin. A candidate who answers 1/2 has considered only the coin and ignored the spinner. A candidate who answers 1/5 has missed one pair when listing the possibility space, treating it as 5 outcomes instead of 6.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.