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.
Answer key: Probability worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (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) 90% — Method: turn the fraction into a decimal by dividing the numerator by the denominator, then multiply the decimal by 100 to turn it into a percentage. Working: 9 ÷ 10 = 0.9, and 0.9 × 100 = 90. Answer: 90%, which is the same probability written in a third form, and all three forms sit at the same point on the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: 9% comes from reading the numerator of the fraction straight off as the percentage; 10% comes from reading the denominator straight off as the percentage; 0.9% comes from correctly finding the decimal 0.9 and then writing a percentage sign after it without multiplying by 100.
- (a) 952 — 68% = 0.68. The relative frequency from the survey applies to the new group of 1400 shoppers, so the expected number is 0.68 × 1400 = 952. Working out 1 − 0.68 = 0.32 and applying that instead, 0.32 × 1400 = 448, finds the number who have NOT used a self-checkout, not the number who have. Applying 68% to the original sample size of 250 instead of the new total of 1400 gives 0.68 × 250 = 170. Applying the complement percentage to the original sample size, 0.32 × 250 = 80, compounds both mistakes.
- (a) 753 — The estimate from 2000 spins is the most reliable, since it comes from the largest sample size, so the best estimate of the probability is 0.251. Over a further 3000 spins, the expected number landing on green is 3000 × 0.251 = 753. Writing 1050 is wrong because 3000 × 0.350 = 1050 uses the estimate from only 20 spins, the LEAST reliable of the three. Writing 870 is wrong because 3000 × 0.290 = 870 uses the estimate from 200 spins rather than the more reliable 2000-spin estimate. Writing 750 is wrong because 3000 × 0.25 = 750 ignores the recorded data completely and simply assumes each of the 4 colours is equally likely. The best estimate is 753 expected green spins.
- (b) 40 — n(P ∪ Q) = n(P) + n(Q) − n(P ∩ Q) = 34 + 27 − 11 = 50. The complement is everyone outside both sets: n((P ∪ Q)′) = 90 − 50 = 40. Adding P and Q without subtracting the overlap gives 34 + 27 = 61, so 90 − 61 = 29 double-subtracts the 11 who are in both. Reporting n(P ∪ Q) itself, 50, forgets to take the complement at all. Subtracting only n(P) from the universal set, 90 − 34 = 56, ignores set Q altogether.
- (a) 16 — Method: keep the two rolls in order, first roll then second roll, and count every ordered pair the dice can land on, so a (2, 3) result is counted separately from a (3, 2) result. Working: the first roll can land on any of 4 numbers, and for each of those the second roll can also land on any of 4 numbers, giving 4 × 4 = 16 ordered pairs. Answer: 16. Watch out: writing down 8 comes from adding the two rolls' counts, 4 + 4, instead of multiplying them. Writing down 10 comes from listing unordered pairs, so (2, 3) and (3, 2) are counted as the same entry — that gives the 4 doubles plus 6 mixed pairs, 10 in total, instead of 16 ordered pairs. And writing down 4 comes from counting only one roll's outcomes and never pairing the two rolls together at all.
- (a) 1/12 — Method: for draws with nothing put back, multiply the probabilities of the three draws, reducing both the number of red counters and the total each time a red counter is removed. Working: the first counter is red with probability 5/10. One red counter has gone, so the second is red with probability 4/9, and then the third is red with probability 3/8. Multiplying gives 60/720. Answer: the probability is 1/12. The distractors: 1/8 comes from using 5/10 three times, which is what happens only if each counter is put back; 2/9 comes from stopping after two draws and giving 5/10 × 4/9; 3/50 comes from taking one off the red count each time but leaving the total at 10, giving 5/10 × 4/10 × 3/10.
- (c) 1/3 — Method: list the scores that satisfy the condition, count them and write that count over the total number of equally likely scores, then simplify. Working: the scores greater than 4 are 5 and 6, so 2 of the 6 equally likely scores qualify, giving 2/6. Answer: 2/6 cancels to 1/3. The distractors: 2/3 comes from giving the probability that the score is not greater than 4, the complement rather than the event asked for; 1/6 comes from giving the probability of one particular qualifying score; 1/2 comes from reading 'greater than 4' as '4 or more' and counting 4, 5 and 6, which gives 3/6.
- (b) 10 — The number who use the pool or the sauna (or both) is the total minus those who use neither: 70 − 12 = 58. Since pool + sauna double-counts the overlap, n(P ∩ S) = 38 + 30 − 58 = 10. Adding the pool and sauna counts without subtracting the overlap at all gives 38 + 30 = 68, more members than are in the whole gym. Subtracting the sauna count from the union, 58 − 30 = 28, actually finds the number who use ONLY the pool, not both. Reporting the 'neither' count, 12, confuses it with the 'both' region — they describe opposite corners of the diagram.
- (b) 1/4 — There are 6 × 2 = 12 equally likely outcomes. The even-numbered cards are 2, 4 and 6, so there are 3 × 1 = 3 outcomes with an even card and tails, giving a probability of 3/12 = 1/4. Choosing 1/2 comes from working out only the probability of drawing an even card, 3/6, and forgetting to combine it with the coin landing on tails. Choosing 1/12 comes from treating only one specific outcome, such as card 6 with tails, as the only one that counts, instead of all three even cards paired with tails. Choosing 1/8 comes from doubling the coin stage when counting the total, using 6 × 2 × 2 = 24 outcomes instead of 6 × 2 = 12, and giving 3/24 = 1/8.
- (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.
- (d) 1/15 — The probability that the first bead is red is 3/10. Since the first bead is not put back, there are now only 2 red beads left out of 9 beads in total, so the probability that the second bead is also red is 2/9. Multiplying these, 3/10 × 2/9 = 6/90 = 1/15. A candidate who answers 9/100 has treated the beads as replaced, using 3/10 twice. A candidate who answers 3/50 has correctly reduced the red count to 2 for the second pick but forgotten that the total also falls to 9, using 2/10 instead. A candidate who answers 5/19 has added the numerators and added the denominators, (3+2)/(10+9), instead of multiplying.
- (d) No, because 3/8 + 5/12 + 1/6 = 23/24 — Using a common denominator of 24: 3/8 = 9/24, 5/12 = 10/24 and 1/6 = 4/24. Adding these numerators gives 9 + 10 + 4 = 23, so the three probabilities sum to 23/24, which is less than 1 — Zara is not correct. Adding the original numerators (3 + 5 + 1 = 9) over a denominator of 12 instead of converting each fraction properly gives 9/12 = 3/4, still less than 1 but the wrong fraction. Converting 1/6 to 5/24 instead of 4/24 (using the wrong scaling) makes the total 9/24 + 10/24 + 5/24 = 24/24 = 1, wrongly suggesting the probabilities are valid. Judging validity from the fact that each individual fraction lies between 0 and 1 ignores that an exhaustive set must sum to exactly 1, not merely contain valid individual values.
- (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.
- (c) 9/25 — The frequency tree already shows the swim-and-cycle branch directly: 54 out of 150, which simplifies to 9/25. Adding both cycling branches together, 54 + 18 = 72, gives the total number of cyclists, so 72/150 = 12/25, not just those who also swim. Using the non-swimmers' cycling figure, 18, gives 18/150 = 3/25, the probability of cycling WITHOUT swimming. Using the swimmers' total of 90, before splitting by cycling, gives 90/150 = 3/5, the probability of swimming on its own.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.