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) 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) 18 — Method: a frequency tree can be filled from either end, because a pair of branches adds up to the number above it and the matching end branches add up to the total for that outcome. Working: the children number 180 − 108 = 72. Of the 153 finishers, 99 were adults, so the children who finished number 153 − 99 = 54. Along the children's branch, 72 − 54 = 18 children did not finish. Answer: 18 children did not finish. The distractors: 27 is 180 − 153 and counts everyone who did not finish, adults included; 9 is 108 − 99 and counts only the adults who did not finish; 54 is the number of children who did finish, which is the branch next to the one asked for.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 4 — With 150 rolls and probability 1/6 for each number, the expected count is 150 ÷ 6 = 25. Comparing each actual count with 25: 1 is 22 (3 below), 2 is 27 (2 above), 3 is 24 (1 below), 4 is 34 (9 above), 5 is 21 (4 below) and 6 is 22 (3 below). Number 4 is furthest above its expected count, so it is the most over-represented. Number 2 is also above its expected count, but by only 2, far less than 4's 9. Number 3's count of 24 is below the expected 25, so it is under-represented, not over. Number 6's count of 22 is also below the expected 25, so it too is under-represented.
- (b) 0.225 — The relative frequency of rain is the number of rainy days out of all days recorded: 9 ÷ 40 = 0.225, which is noticeably less than the forecaster's claimed 0.3. Using the number of dry days, 40 − 9 = 31, as the denominator instead of the total of 40 gives 9 ÷ 31 = 0.29 (2 d.p.). Simply reporting the forecaster's claimed value, 0.3, without calculating anything from the data at all, ignores the recorded results completely. Misplacing the decimal point, treating 9 out of 40 as 9%, gives 0.09 instead of 0.225.
- (a) 1/6 — Method: for equally likely outcomes, write the number of favourable outcomes over the total number of outcomes. Working: the dice has one face showing 6, and there are 6 equally likely faces in total, so the probability is 1 over 6. Answer: 1/6, which is close to the left-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because the outcome is unlikely. The distractors: 5/6 comes from giving the probability of not rolling a 6; 1/2 comes from treating 'a 6' and 'not a 6' as two equally likely outcomes; 1/5 comes from writing the one favourable face over the 5 faces that are not a 6 instead of over all 6 faces.
- (c) 90 — Method: over many future trials the expected number of successes is the number of trials multiplied by the probability of a success. Working: the sections are equal, so each is equally likely and P(red) is 3 out of 8. Over 240 spins the expected number of reds is 240 × 3 ÷ 8 = 90. Answer: about 90 of the spins would be expected to land on red. The distractors: 150 uses the 5 sections that are not red, 240 × 5 ÷ 8 = 150, which is the expected number of spins that do not land on red; 30 is 240 ÷ 8 and is the expected count for one single section; 80 comes from dividing by the number of red sections instead of by the number of sections, 240 ÷ 3 = 80.
- (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.
- (b) 11/36 — Method: 'at least one' is the opposite of 'none at all', so work out the probability of no 5 on either roll and take it away from 1. Working: a roll that is not a 5 has probability 5/6, and the rolls are independent, so no 5 at all has probability 5/6 × 5/6 = 25/36. Taking this from 36/36 leaves 11/36. Answer: the probability is 11/36. The distractors: 25/36 is the probability of no 5 at all, written down without the final subtraction; 12/36 comes from counting the 6 pairs with a 5 on the first roll and the 6 pairs with a 5 on the second and adding them, which counts the pair (5, 5) twice; 30/36 comes from working out 1 − 1/6 as though only one roll were made.
- (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) 0.65 — Overrunning and not overrunning are exhaustive: between them they cover every outcome, so their probabilities sum to 1. Work out 1 − 0.35 = 0.65. Writing 0.35 again is the probability that the appointment overruns, not its complement — the subtraction was never done. Adding instead of subtracting gives 1 + 0.35 = 1.35, which cannot be a probability at all. Subtracting each digit from 10 instead of borrowing from the 1, so 10 − 3 = 7 tenths and 10 − 5 = 5 hundredths, gives 0.75.
- (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.
- (b) 3/5 — The question asks about the girls only, so use the girls' total of 70 as the denominator: 42 out of 70 girls walk, giving 42/70 = 3/5. Choosing 21/65 comes from using the whole survey of 130 pupils as the denominator instead of just the 70 girls, 42/130 = 21/65. Choosing 33/70 comes from using the boys' walking count, 33, over the girls' total of 70, mixing up the two rows of the table. Choosing 2/5 comes from using the number of girls who CYCLE, 70 − 42 = 28, instead of the number who walk, giving 28/70 = 2/5.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.