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) No, because 3/8 + 5/12 + 1/6 = 23/24 — Using a common denominator of 24: 3/8 = 9/24, 5/12 = 10/24 and 1/6 = 4/24. Adding these numerators gives 9 + 10 + 4 = 23, so the three probabilities sum to 23/24, which is less than 1 — Zara is not correct. Adding the original numerators (3 + 5 + 1 = 9) over a denominator of 12 instead of converting each fraction properly gives 9/12 = 3/4, still less than 1 but the wrong fraction. Converting 1/6 to 5/24 instead of 4/24 (using the wrong scaling) makes the total 9/24 + 10/24 + 5/24 = 24/24 = 1, wrongly suggesting the probabilities are valid. Judging validity from the fact that each individual fraction lies between 0 and 1 ignores that an exhaustive set must sum to exactly 1, not merely contain valid individual values.
- (b) 50 — There are 180 − 100 = 80 south-plot gardeners. 30 of them do not grow organically, so the rest do: 80 − 30 = 50. Writing 64 is wrong because that is the number of NORTH-plot gardeners who grow organically, not south. Writing 30 again is wrong because that is the number of south-plot gardeners who do NOT grow organically — the question asks for those who do. Writing 80 is wrong because that is the whole south-plot total, without subtracting the 30 who do not grow organically. The answer is 50.
- (a) 4/15 — Method: first find how many pupils travel only by car, then write that as a fraction of the 60 pupils surveyed. Working: pupils who walk or cycle or both = 32 + 24 − 12 = 44. Only by car = 60 − 44 = 16. P(only by car) = 16/60 = 4/15. Answer: 4/15. Watch out: writing down 1/5 takes the overlap of 12 pupils on its own, 12/60, mistaking the group who do both for the group who travel only by car. Writing down 4/5 comes from 60 − 12 = 48, subtracting only the overlap from the total instead of the whole walk-or-cycle count, so cyclists and walkers who are not in the overlap are wrongly swept into the only-car group. And writing down 7/15 comes from 60 − 32 = 28, subtracting the walkers alone and forgetting the cyclists altogether.
- (a) No — the three probabilities sum to 1.10, over 1. — Winning, drawing and losing are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, so their probabilities must sum to exactly 1. Adding Freddie's three values gives 0.45 + 0.3 + 0.35 = 1.10, which is more than 1, so his probabilities cannot all be correct: 'No — the three probabilities sum to 1.10, over 1.' Checking only that each value lies between 0 and 1 accepts them as 'Yes — each probability lies between 0 and 1' without ever adding the three together. Judging by which outcome sounds most likely leads to 'Yes — winning has the highest single probability', which never checks the total either. Noting that a runner cannot win, draw and lose at once, and treating that alone as enough, gives 'Yes — the three outcomes are mutually exclusive' — but mutually exclusive outcomes that are also exhaustive must still sum to 1, and 1.10 does not.
- (a) 12/25 — P(red then blue) = 4/10 × 6/10 = 24/100. P(blue then red) is the same, 6/10 × 4/10 = 24/100. Since either order counts as different colours, add them: 24/100 + 24/100 = 48/100 = 12/25. Working out only one order, red-then-blue, and forgetting blue-then-red, gives 24/100 = 6/25. Working out the probability that the two counters are the SAME colour instead — 4/10 × 4/10 + 6/10 × 6/10 = 16/100 + 36/100 = 52/100 = 13/25 — answers a different question. Using 6/9 for the second draw, as if the first counter were not replaced, gives 2 × (4/10 × 6/9) = 48/90 = 8/15.
- (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.
- (a) 195 — The relative frequency from the trial is 52 ÷ 80 = 0.65, and the expected number of point-up landings in 300 drops is 0.65 × 300 = 195. Giving 52 as the answer reuses the original count from the 80-drop trial without scaling it up to 300 drops at all. Misreading 52 out of 80 as 52% and finding 52% of 300 gives 156. Finding the expected number of point-DOWN landings instead of point-up, using the relative frequency 28 ÷ 80 = 0.35, gives 0.35 × 300 = 105.
- (b) 0.4 — The two events are independent, so multiply the two probabilities: 0.8 × 0.5 = 0.4. Choosing 1.3 comes from adding the two probabilities instead of multiplying, 0.8 + 0.5 = 1.3. Choosing 0.3 comes from subtracting the two probabilities, 0.8 − 0.5 = 0.3, instead of multiplying them. Choosing 0.1 comes from using the probability that Ben is NOT on time, 1 − 0.8 = 0.2, and multiplying that by Freya's probability instead, 0.2 × 0.5 = 0.1.
- (c) 102 — Method: turn the past record into a relative frequency, then use it as an estimate of the probability of rain and multiply by the number of days being predicted for. Working: relative frequency of rain = 70 ÷ 250 = 0.28. Expected rainy days in 365 days = 365 × 0.28 = 102.2, which rounds to about 102 days. Answer: about 102 days. Watch out: writing down 48 swaps which number is the sample and which is the target, working out 70 ÷ 365 × 250 instead of 70 ÷ 250 × 365. Writing down 70 just repeats the original count of rainy days without scaling it up to the new, longer period at all. And writing down 110 comes from rounding the relative frequency to 0.3 before multiplying, 365 × 0.3 = 109.5, when 70 ÷ 250 is exactly 0.28 and needs no rounding at all.
- (d) 140 — 90 pupils were in Year 8 on the coach branch. The minibus branch has 200 − 150 = 50 pupils, and all of them are Year 8 too, so the total number of Year 8 pupils is 90 + 50 = 140. Writing 90 alone is wrong because it only counts the coach's Year 8 pupils and misses the minibus ones. Writing 60 is wrong because that is the number of Year 9 pupils on the coach (150 − 90 = 60), not Year 8 at all. Writing 50 alone is wrong because it only counts the minibus pupils and misses the coach's Year 8 pupils. The total is 140.
- (d) 56 — Method: count the trials over the whole period first, then multiply the number of trials by the probability. Working: 4 weeks is 4 × 7 = 28 days, and at 25 trains a day that is 25 × 28 = 700 trains. The expected number of late trains is 700 × 0.08 = 56. Answer: about 56 late trains over the 4 weeks. The distractors: 2 is the expected number for a single day, 25 × 0.08 = 2, with the 28 days never brought in; 14 uses one week instead of four, 25 × 7 × 0.08 = 14; 644 is 700 − 56 and counts the trains expected to be on time.
- (c) 23 — Multiples of 4 from 1 to 30 are 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 28 — 7 numbers, so n(A) = 7. The universal set has 30 elements, so n(A′) = 30 − 7 = 23. Reporting n(A) itself, 7, without subtracting it from the universal set forgets what the complement means. Estimating the count of multiples of 4 as 30 ÷ 4 = 7.5, rounded to 8, instead of listing them exactly, gives 30 − 8 = 22. Miscounting the universal set as having 31 elements instead of 30, an off-by-one slip, gives 31 − 7 = 24.
- (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.
- (c) 2 — Set A, the multiples of 3, is {3, 6, 9}. Removing the numbers that are also in set B, the even numbers {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}, leaves {3, 9} — 2 numbers are in A but not B. Giving 3, the whole size of set A, forgets to remove the number 6, which is also even. Giving 7 counts every number in A or B combined, {2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10}, rather than only those in A but not B. Giving 4 counts the numbers in set B but not set A, {2, 4, 8, 10}, the wrong way round.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.