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
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 0.8 — Method: the spinner cannot land on red and blue at the same time, so the two events are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added. Working: 0.3 + 0.5, lining the decimal points up. Answer: 0.8, which also tells you that the remaining colour, green, has probability 0.2 because the three must add to 1. The distractors: 0.2 comes from subtracting 0.3 from 0.5 instead of adding the two probabilities; 0.15 comes from multiplying 0.3 by 0.5 instead of adding them; 0.4 comes from finding the mean of 0.3 and 0.5 rather than their total.
- (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.
- (d) 3/50 — Relative frequency is the number of faulty bolts divided by the total sample size: 15/250, which simplifies to 3/50 by dividing both the numerator and the denominator by 5. Using 235, the number of bolts that were NOT faulty, as the denominator instead of the total 250 gives 15/235, which simplifies to 3/47. Inverting the fraction, dividing the total by the number of faulty bolts instead of the other way round, gives 250/15, which simplifies to 50/3 — a value greater than 1, which cannot be a probability. Simplifying by dividing the numerator and the denominator by different numbers, 15 ÷ 15 = 1 and 250 ÷ 25 = 10, gives 1/10.
- (a) unlikely — 3/8 = 3 ÷ 8 = 0.375, which is between 0 and 0.5, so the probability is best described as unlikely. Rounding 3/8 loosely to 'about a half' without converting it properly leads to evens, which is wrong since 0.375 is noticeably below 0.5. Reading 3/8 as the complement and using 1 − 3/8 = 5/8 = 0.625 instead gives likely, but the question asks about the probability of 3/8 itself, not its complement. Flipping the fraction to 8/3 ≈ 2.67, which is impossible for a probability, and rounding it towards the top of the scale gives certain.
- (c) Game Y — 0.4 is greater than 3/8. — Converting 3/8 to a decimal gives 3 ÷ 8 = 0.375, and 0.4 is greater than 0.375, so game Y gives the better chance of winning: 'Game Y — 0.4 is greater than 3/8.' Comparing the numerator 3 to the digit 0 in front of the decimal point in 0.4 compares two unrelated numbers and gives 'Game X — 3 is greater than 0, the units digit of 0.4.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning more chances, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Game X — 3/8 has the larger denominator.' Rounding 0.375 to 0.4 to one decimal place makes the two values look equal, but they are not exactly equal, so 'Equal — 3/8 rounds to 0.4 to one decimal place' mistakes a rounded match for a true one.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 1/36 — Method: the two dice do not affect each other, so the probability that both results happen is the product of the two separate probabilities. Working: a 1 on the red dice has probability 1/6 and a 2 on the blue dice has probability 1/6. Multiplying gives 1 × 1 = 1 on the top and 6 × 6 = 36 on the bottom. Answer: the probability is 1/36. The distractors: 1/18 comes from allowing either order, counting a 2 on the red dice with a 1 on the blue dice as well, although the stem names which dice shows which score; 1/3 comes from adding 1/6 and 1/6 instead of multiplying; 1/6 comes from giving the probability for one dice only and treating the other as making no difference.
- (d) 1/5 — Method: list the pairs systematically, work out each total, then count the pairs that meet the condition and compare that count with the length of the list. Working: the pairs and their totals are 1 and 2 giving 3, 1 and 3 giving 4, 1 and 4 giving 5, 1 and 5 giving 6, 2 and 3 giving 5, 2 and 4 giving 6, 2 and 5 giving 7, 3 and 4 giving 7, 3 and 5 giving 8, and 4 and 5 giving 9. That is 10 pairs, of which 2 have a total of more than 7. Answer: the probability is 1/5. The distractors: 2/5 comes from counting the totals of exactly 7 as well, reading 'more than 7' as '7 or more'; 1/10 comes from finding only the pair 4 and 5 and missing that 3 and 5 also beat 7; 4/5 comes from counting the pairs on the wrong side of the condition, the 8 pairs whose total is 7 or less.
- (b) £100 — Method: find the expected number of wins, turn that into the expected pay out, then compare it with what the games cost. Working: the expected number of wins is 200 × 0.15 = 30. Each win pays £10, so the expected pay out is 30 × 10 = 300 pounds. Playing 200 times at £2 a go costs 200 × 2 = 400 pounds. The expected loss is 400 − 300 = 100 pounds. Answer: Amir should expect to be about £100 down. The distractors: £300 is the expected winnings on their own, with the cost of playing never taken off; £400 is the total cost of playing, with the winnings never taken off; £700 comes from adding the two totals, 400 + 300 = 700, instead of subtracting one from the other.
- (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.
- (d) 19/100 — It is easier to first find the probability that NEITHER component is faulty, then subtract from 1. The probability a component is not faulty is 9/10, so the probability neither is faulty is 9/10 × 9/10 = 81/100. So the probability at least one is faulty is 1 − 81/100 = 19/100. Choosing 1/5 comes from adding the two probabilities of a fault instead, 1/10 + 1/10 = 1/5, which double-counts the case where both are faulty. Choosing 1/10 comes from giving the probability for just one component being faulty. Choosing 1/100 comes from squaring the probability of a fault directly, 1/10 × 1/10 = 1/100, which is actually the probability that BOTH are faulty, not at least one.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.