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
- (a) 0.368 — Combining both samples, the spinner landed on red 34 + 58 = 92 times out of a total of 85 + 165 = 250 spins, so the best estimate of the probability is 92/250 = 0.368. Writing 0.400 is wrong because it uses only the first sample, 34/85 = 0.400, ignoring the extra 165 spins recorded afterwards. Writing 0.352 is wrong because it uses only the second sample, 58/165 = 0.352 (to 3 decimal places), ignoring the first 85 spins. Writing 0.376 is wrong because it averages the two separate estimates, (0.400 + 0.352) ÷ 2 = 0.376, instead of combining the actual numbers of reds and spins across both samples. The best estimate of the probability that the spinner lands on red, using all 250 spins, is 0.368.
- (a) 60 — Method: because the counter goes back each time, every draw is the same experiment, so the expected number of reds is the number of draws multiplied by P(red). Working: there are 8 red counters out of 20, so P(red) = 8 ÷ 20 = 0.4. Over 150 draws the expected number of reds is 150 × 0.4 = 60. Answer: about 60 red counters would be expected. The distractors: 90 uses P(blue) by mistake, 150 × 12 ÷ 20 = 90; 100 comes from writing the probability from the red to blue ratio of 8 to 12, giving 150 × 8 ÷ 12 = 100; 75 comes from treating red and blue as equally likely because there are two colours, which gives 150 ÷ 2 = 75.
- (c) 0.6 — Method: no two of these ways of travelling can happen on the same day, so they are mutually exclusive and the probability that one of them happens is the sum of their probabilities; they need not add to 1, because travelling by car is a fourth way. Working: 0.2 + 0.3 = 0.5, and 0.5 + 0.1 = 0.6, the decimal points lined up at each step. Answer: 0.6, which also shows that the probability of being taken by car is 0.4, since all four ways together must make 1. The distractors: 0.4 comes from carrying on past the question and giving the probability of the remaining way, by car; 0.5 comes from adding only the bus and the bike and leaving the smallest of the three probabilities out of the total; 0.006 comes from multiplying the three probabilities together instead of adding them.
- (d) 3/5 — The first tile drawn is a consonant with probability 4/5, since 4 of the 5 letters in MATHS are consonants. Since it is not replaced, 3 consonants remain out of the 4 tiles left, so the second tile is a consonant with probability 3/4. Multiplying gives 4/5 × 3/4 = 3/5. Choosing 4/5 comes from only using the probability for the first draw and forgetting the second draw changes once a tile is removed. Choosing 3/4 comes from only using the probability for the second draw on its own. Choosing 16/25 comes from treating the two draws as independent, using 4/5 × 4/5 = 16/25, which would only be correct if the first tile were replaced before the second draw.
- (a) 0.15 — Let P(water) = x, so P(coffee) = 3x. The four outcomes are exhaustive: 0.36 + 0.04 + x + 3x = 1, so 0.4 + 4x = 1, giving 4x = 0.6 and x = 0.15. So P(water) = 0.15. Reporting 3x, the coffee probability, instead of water gives 0.45. Splitting the remaining 0.6 evenly between coffee and water, ignoring the 3:1 ratio, gives 0.30. Stopping once the remaining probability 0.6 is found, without dividing by the four equal shares, gives 0.60.
- (b) 0.49 — Adding all four pupils' flips gives 40 + 25 + 20 + 15 = 100 flips in total, and adding their heads gives 24 + 10 + 9 + 6 = 49 heads in total, so the combined estimate is 49/100 = 0.49. Writing 0.46 is wrong because it averages the four pupils' individual rates (0.60, 0.40, 0.45 and 0.40) as if they all came from the same number of flips, which they do not — this ignores that Sam and Priti flipped far more times than Leo and Fatima. Writing 0.60 is wrong because it only uses Sam's own result (24/40 = 0.60), ignoring the other three pupils. Writing 0.40 is wrong because it only combines Priti and Fatima's results (16/40 = 0.40), leaving out Sam and Leo entirely. The combined estimate from all four pupils is 0.49.
- (a) 5/36 — Method: list every result of the two dice as an ordered pair, first score then second score, count the pairs that give the total asked for and divide by how many pairs the list holds. Working: each dice can show 6 scores, so there are 6 × 6 = 36 equally likely ordered pairs. The pairs whose scores add to 6 are (1, 5), (2, 4), (3, 3), (4, 2) and (5, 1), which is 5 pairs out of the 36. Answer: the probability is 5/36. The distractors: 4/36 comes from listing (1, 5), (5, 1), (2, 4) and (4, 2) and leaving (3, 3) out, because a double does not look like a pair that can be turned round; 5/12 comes from finding the 5 pairs but taking the number of possible results to be 6 + 6 = 12, adding the two dice instead of multiplying them; 1/11 comes from treating the eleven possible totals 2, 3, 4 and so on up to 12 as equally likely, so that a total of 6 is one result out of eleven.
- (c) 28 — Reading only is 22 − 6 = 16, and gaming only is 18 − 6 = 12, so exactly one of the two is 16 + 12 = 28. Adding 22 and 18 without removing the 6 who like both, 22 + 18 = 40, counts those 6 students twice. Giving 6 mistakes the number who like both for the number who like exactly one. Finding 22 + 18 − 6 = 34 gives the number who like at least one of reading or gaming, but stops there instead of also removing the 6 who like both to leave only those who like exactly one.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 21 — Pink, gold and grey cover every counter, so their probabilities sum to 1: P(grey) = 1 − 0.2 − 0.45 = 0.35. Number of grey counters = 0.35 × 60 = 21. Multiplying the pink probability by 60 gives 12, the number of pink counters, not grey. Multiplying the gold probability by 60 gives 27, the number of gold counters. Adding 0.2 and 0.45 without subtracting from 1 gives 0.65, and 0.65 × 60 = 39 counts the pink and gold counters together, not the grey ones.
- (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.
- (c) 30 — The numbers less than 4 are 1, 2 and 3, so the probability of that event is 3/6, and the expected count in 90 rolls is 90 × 3/6 = 45. The probability of rolling a 6 is 1/6, and the expected count is 90 × 1/6 = 15. The difference between the two expected counts is 45 − 15 = 30. A candidate who answers 45 has given the expected count for 'less than 4' only, forgetting to subtract the other expected count. A candidate who answers 15 has given the expected count for '6' only. A candidate who answers 36 has used a dice with 5 possible numbers instead of 6, giving 90 × 3/5 = 54 and 90 × 1/5 = 18, a difference of 36.
- (a) Class A — Class A: 18/24 = 0.75 = 75%. Class B: 21/30 = 0.7 = 70%. Since 75% > 70%, class A had the greater proportion passing, even though fewer pupils passed there in total. Choosing class B compares the raw numbers of pupils who passed (21 > 18) rather than the proportions. The two proportions are not equal — 0.75 and 0.7 are different values, so the two classes did not have the same pass rate. The class sizes being different does not prevent a comparison: converting each to a proportion makes the two classes directly comparable, so the answer can be determined.
- (a) 3,860 — The probability a bulb works correctly is the complement of being defective: 1 − 0.035 = 0.965. Expected number working correctly = 0.965 × 4,000 = 3,860. Using the probability of being defective instead of its complement gives 4,000 × 0.035 = 140, the expected number of DEFECTIVE bulbs, not working ones. Shifting the decimal point in the complement, using 0.0965 instead of 0.965, gives 4,000 × 0.0965 = 386. Assuming every bulb works, ignoring the 0.035 probability altogether, gives the full batch of 4,000.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.