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) 3 pupils — Method: an expected frequency is the probability multiplied by the number of trials, so multiply the probability by the number of pupils. Working: 30 × 1/10 means finding one tenth of 30, and 30 ÷ 10 = 3. Answer: 3 pupils would be expected to have a nut allergy. The distractors: 27 pupils comes from working out how many are expected NOT to have the allergy, 30 − 3, instead of how many are; 10 pupils comes from reading the 10 in the fraction 1/10 as the number of pupils; 1 pupil comes from reading the numerator of the fraction as the expected number.
- (a) 4/7 — Method: going away and not going away are the only two possibilities, so the two probabilities form an exhaustive set and add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 7/7 gives 7/7 − 3/7, and 7 − 3 = 4 sevenths. Answer: 4/7. The distractors: 3/7 comes from giving back the probability that the family do go away; 1/7 comes from taking the 1 in '1 − 3/7' as a numerator and writing it over the denominator 7; 1/2 comes from assuming that going away and not going away must be equally likely because there are only two possibilities.
- (d) 1/8 — Method: a run of flips of a fair coin gives equally likely sequences of heads and tails, so count the sequences that match and divide by how many sequences there are. Working: each flip lands two ways and no flip affects another, so three flips give 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 equally likely sequences: HHH, HHT, HTH, HTT, THH, THT, TTH and TTT. Only HHH has a head at every flip, so 1 sequence of the 8 matches. Answer: the probability is 1/8. The distractors: 1/4 comes from treating 'three heads', 'two heads', 'one head' and 'no heads' as four equally likely results, which they are not, since one sequence gives three heads and three sequences give two; 1/6 comes from taking the number of sequences to be 2 + 2 + 2 = 6, adding the two ways each flip can land instead of multiplying them; 1/2 comes from reading the first flip only and giving the probability of a head on one flip, without combining it with the other two.
- (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.
- (d) 0.7 — Method: delayed and not delayed are the only two outcomes, so the two probabilities form an exhaustive set and add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: 1 − 0.3, written as 1.0 − 0.3 with the decimal points lined up. Answer: 0.7. The distractors: 0.3 comes from giving back the probability that the train is delayed instead of its complement; 0.97 comes from lining the decimal points up wrongly and working out 1.00 − 0.03; 0.5 comes from assuming that delayed and not delayed must be equally likely because there are only two outcomes.
- (c) 39.5% — Win, draw and lose are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 100%: 42% + 18.5% = 60.5% is the percentage that wins or draws. 100% − 60.5% = 39.5% is the percentage that neither wins nor draws. Adding 42% and 18.5% and stopping there, 60.5%, is the probability of winning or drawing, not of neither. Subtracting only the 42% from 100% gives 58.0%, ignoring the draw percentage. Subtracting only the 18.5% from 100% gives 81.5%, ignoring the win percentage.
- (c) 0.37 — Method: pool the two runs into one combined set of results, then find the relative frequency of red across all of the spins together. Working: total reds = 16 + 21 = 37. Total spins = 40 + 60 = 100. Relative frequency = 37 ÷ 100 = 0.37. Answer: 0.37. Watch out: writing down 0.40 uses only the first run, 16 ÷ 40, and throws away the extra evidence from the second 60 spins. Writing down 0.35 uses only the second run, 21 ÷ 60, and throws away the first run instead. And writing down 0.375 averages the two runs' separate rates, (0.40 + 0.35) ÷ 2, which treats a run of 40 spins and a run of 60 spins as equally weighted, when pooling the actual counts gives the larger run its fair share of influence.
- (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.
- (b) 37 — Method: on a frequency tree each pair of branches adds back up to the number it came from, so work out the failures on each branch and then add the two end branches. Working: on the men's branch 70 − 45 = 25 men failed. On the women's branch 50 − 38 = 12 women failed. Adding the two failing end branches gives 25 + 12 = 37. Answer: 37 of the 120 people failed the test. The distractors: 83 comes from adding the two passing branches, 45 + 38 = 83, and so reads the tree for the wrong outcome; 25 is the men's failing branch on its own, with the women never added; 12 is the women's failing branch on its own, with the men never added.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 8/52 — Method: a card cannot be an ace and a king at the same time, so the two events are mutually exclusive and their probabilities are added, keeping the denominator the same. Working: P(ace) = 4/52 and P(king) = 4/52, so P(ace or king) = 4/52 + 4/52, and 4 + 4 = 8 fifty-seconds. Answer: 8/52. The distractors: 4/52 comes from giving the probability of just one of the two events and forgetting to add the other; 16/52 comes from multiplying the two counts, 4 × 4, instead of adding them; 1/52 comes from giving the probability of one particular named card rather than any of the eight.
- (d) 32 — The frequency tree already shows the tea-and-coffee branch directly: of the 50 tea drinkers, 32 also drink coffee, so n(T ∩ C) = 32. Adding both coffee branches together, 32 + 6 = 38, gives n(C), the total number of coffee drinkers, not just those who also drink tea. Using the non-tea branch's figure, 6, describes people who drink coffee but NOT tea. Subtracting to get 50 − 32 = 18 finds the tea drinkers who do NOT drink coffee, the opposite region to the one asked for.
- (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%.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.