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) 1/20 — Method: two draws with nothing put back are combined by multiplying, with the second probability worked out from the tickets still in the bag. Working: the first draw takes the wanted ticket with probability 1/5. That ticket is kept out, so 4 tickets remain and only one of them is the ticket wanted second, giving 1/4. Multiplying gives 1/20. Answer: the probability is 1/20. The distractors: 1/10 comes from ignoring the order and treating the draw as a choice of two tickets from five, of which there are ten; 1/25 comes from keeping the total at 5 for the second draw, which is what happens only if the first ticket is put back; 2/5 comes from counting the two wanted tickets over the five in the bag, as though one draw decided the whole question.
- (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.
- (b) 10 — Method: A′ means everything in the universal set that is NOT in A, so n(A′) = n(universal set) − n(A). Working: the universal set has 15 elements. A = {3, 6, 9, 12, 15}, so n(A) = 5. n(A′) = 15 − 5 = 10. Answer: 10. Watch out: writing down 5 gives n(A) itself, the size of the multiples-of-3 set, which is the opposite of its complement. Writing down 11 comes from missing 15 off the list of multiples of 3, treating A as only {3, 6, 9, 12}, so A is undercounted as 4 and A′ is overstated as 15 − 4. And writing down 12 comes from only listing the multiples of 3 up to 9 — 3, 6 and 9 — and missing that 12 and 15 also belong to A, undercounting A as 3 rather than 5.
- (b) 10 — There are 25 equally likely ordered pairs in total. Listing the pairs where the Spinner P score is less than the Spinner Q score gives 10 outcomes, running from (1, 2) up to (4, 5). Choosing 15 comes from also including the 5 pairs where the two scores are equal, such as (1, 1) and (2, 2), which do not satisfy 'less than'. Choosing 4 comes from counting only the outcomes where the scores differ by exactly 1, such as (1, 2) and (2, 3), and missing the pairs that differ by 2, 3 or 4. Choosing 20 comes from correctly excluding the 5 outcomes where the two scores are equal, 25 − 5 = 20, but forgetting to also exclude the outcomes where Spinner P is bigger than Spinner Q, rather than smaller.
- (d) 19/30 — Exactly one means only fiction or only non-fiction, not both: 21 + 17 = 38 out of the 60 readers, which simplifies to 19/30. Including the 14 who read both as well gives 21 + 17 + 14 = 52, so 52/60 = 13/15 — that is at least one, not exactly one. Using only the both-count, 14, as the numerator gives 14/60 = 7/30, the probability of reading both, not exactly one. Using 52, the number who read at least one type, as the denominator instead of the full 60 readers surveyed gives 38/52 = 19/26.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6. — The theoretical probability of rolling a 6 on an ordinary dice is fixed at 1/6, worked out from the number of equally likely outcomes, and does not change however the dice is actually rolled. The relative frequency from this trial is 7/30, found from what happened in these particular 30 rolls. Since 7/30 and 1/6 are different numbers, the correct statement is 'No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6.' Assuming the two values must always match because they describe the same event gives 'Yes — relative frequency always equals theory.' Believing that an observed result redefines the theoretical probability gives 'Yes — the theoretical probability has now become 7/30.' Refusing to work out either value at all gives 'Neither can be found — 30 rolls is too few to tell', which ignores that both numbers CAN be calculated from the information given.
- (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) 315 — The relative frequency from the survey is 42 ÷ 120 = 0.35, so the expected number who prefer paper bags among 900 shoppers is 0.35 × 900 = 315. Giving 42 as the answer reuses the original survey count without scaling it up to 900 shoppers at all. Finding the expected number who prefer PLASTIC bags instead of paper, using the relative frequency 78 ÷ 120 = 0.65, gives 0.65 × 900 = 585. Using 1000 shoppers instead of the 900 actually stated gives 0.35 × 1000 = 350.
- (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.
- (c) 24 — Silver, bronze and copper cover every counter, so their probabilities sum to 1: P(copper) = 1 − 1/2 − 1/8 = 3/8. Number of copper counters = 3/8 × 64 = 24. Multiplying the silver probability by 64 gives 32, the number of silver counters, not copper. Multiplying the bronze probability by 64 gives 8, the number of bronze counters. Adding the silver and bronze probabilities (1/2 + 1/8 = 5/8) and multiplying by 64 gives 40, the combined number of silver and bronze counters, not the copper count.
- (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) 3 — Method: build the list of possible results systematically, taking the first flip as a head and then as a tail, and keeping the two flips in order so that a head then a tail is a different result from a tail then a head; then count the results that match the description. Working: with a head at the first flip the results are HH and HT, and with a tail at the first flip they are TH and TT, so the list is HH, HT, TH, TT — four results in all. The results containing at least one tail are HT, TH and TT. Answer: 3 of the results in the list contain at least one tail. The distractors: 2 comes from treating a head and a tail as one result however they are ordered, which shortens the list to HH, HT, TT so that only two entries hold a tail; 1 comes from reading 'at least one tail' as a tail at both flips, which is the single result TT; 4 comes from counting the tails written across the list — one in HT, one in TH and two in TT — instead of counting the results that contain a tail.
- (c) 11/20 — 'Red or white' combines two mutually exclusive events, so add their probabilities: 3/10 = 6/20 and 1/4 = 5/20, giving 6/20 + 5/20 = 11/20. Multiplying the two probabilities instead of adding them, 3/10 × 1/4, gives 3/40, which would be the probability of red and white together, not red or white — and a bead can't be both colours. Subtracting the sum from 1, 1 − 11/20 = 9/20, gives the probability of the bead being black instead of red or white. Converting 1/4 as 4/20 instead of 5/20 (dividing 20 by 4 but forgetting to scale the numerator) gives 6/20 + 4/20 = 1/2.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.