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) 140 — 90 pupils were in Year 8 on the coach branch. The minibus branch has 200 − 150 = 50 pupils, and all of them are Year 8 too, so the total number of Year 8 pupils is 90 + 50 = 140. Writing 90 alone is wrong because it only counts the coach's Year 8 pupils and misses the minibus ones. Writing 60 is wrong because that is the number of Year 9 pupils on the coach (150 − 90 = 60), not Year 8 at all. Writing 50 alone is wrong because it only counts the minibus pupils and misses the coach's Year 8 pupils. The total is 140.
- (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) 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) 2 — Set A, the multiples of 3, is {3, 6, 9}. Removing the numbers that are also in set B, the even numbers {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}, leaves {3, 9} — 2 numbers are in A but not B. Giving 3, the whole size of set A, forgets to remove the number 6, which is also even. Giving 7 counts every number in A or B combined, {2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10}, rather than only those in A but not B. Giving 4 counts the numbers in set B but not set A, {2, 4, 8, 10}, the wrong way round.
- (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) 1/12 — Method: list the full possibility space of sandwich-and-drink pairs, then divide the one matching pair by the size of the whole space. Working: there are 3 × 4 = 12 equally likely sandwich-and-drink pairs, and exactly one of them is egg and water. Answer: 1/12. Watch out: writing down 1/7 comes from adding the two counts, 3 + 4 = 7, instead of multiplying them to build the possibility space. Writing down 1/3 uses only the chance of choosing egg out of 3 sandwiches and ignores the drink altogether. And writing down 1/4 uses only the chance of choosing water out of 4 drinks and ignores the sandwich altogether.
- (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.
- (b) 0.150 — The six scores are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1. The probability of not landing on 6 is 1 − 0.25 = 0.75, and this is shared equally between the other five scores, so each has probability 0.75 ÷ 5 = 0.150. Giving 0.750 as the answer stops after finding the probability of not landing on 6, without sharing it out between the five remaining scores. Dividing 0.75 by 6 instead of by 5 gives 0.125, wrongly including the score of 6 among the equally likely scores. Ignoring the bias completely and dividing 1 by all six scores gives 1 ÷ 6 = 0.167.
- (c) 23 — Multiples of 4 from 1 to 30 are 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 28 — 7 numbers, so n(A) = 7. The universal set has 30 elements, so n(A′) = 30 − 7 = 23. Reporting n(A) itself, 7, without subtracting it from the universal set forgets what the complement means. Estimating the count of multiples of 4 as 30 ÷ 4 = 7.5, rounded to 8, instead of listing them exactly, gives 30 − 8 = 22. Miscounting the universal set as having 31 elements instead of 30, an off-by-one slip, gives 31 − 7 = 24.
- (a) 43/70 — There are 140 − 85 = 55 Zone B households, and 55 − 21 = 34 of them recycle glass. In total, 52 + 34 = 86 households recycle glass, out of 140: 86/140 = 43/70. Writing 13/35 is wrong because 52/140 simplifies to 13/35, and 52 only counts Zone A, leaving out the 34 Zone B recyclers. Writing 17/70 is wrong because 34/140 simplifies to 17/70, and 34 only counts Zone B, leaving out the 52 Zone A recyclers. Writing 73/140 is wrong because it adds the 52 Zone A recyclers to the 21 Zone B households that do NOT recycle, mixing up two different groups instead of adding the two recycling groups. The probability is 43/70.
- (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.
- (d) 50% — Method: write the number of red cards over the total number of cards, then turn that fraction into a percentage by dividing and multiplying by 100. Working: the probability is 26/52; 26 ÷ 52 = 0.5 and 0.5 × 100 = 50. Answer: 50%, the exact middle of the 0 to 1 probability scale, which matches the fact that half the pack is red. The distractors: 26% comes from writing the number of red cards straight down as the percentage without dividing by the total; 25% comes from taking one of the four suits as the red ones and giving a quarter; 2% comes from dividing the wrong way round, 52 ÷ 26 = 2, and writing that as a percentage.
- (b) 37/75 — There are 150 − 84 = 66 men. 84 − 50 = 34 women prefer weight training, and 40 men prefer weight training, so 34 + 40 = 74 people in total prefer weight training, out of 150: 74/150 = 37/75. Writing 4/15 is wrong because it only counts the men who prefer weight training (40/150, simplified), leaving out the 34 women. Writing 17/75 is wrong because it only counts the women who prefer weight training (34/150, simplified), leaving out the 40 men. Writing 37/42 is wrong because it uses the number of women (84) as the denominator instead of the whole gym (150) — 74/84 simplifies to 37/42, but that is not a probability out of the whole group. The probability is 37/75.
- (d) 21 — Method: 'yoga only' means yoga but not pilates, so subtract the number who do both from the total who do yoga. Working: 32 − 11 = 21. Answer: 21. Watch out: writing down 32, the total who do yoga, answers 'how many do yoga' rather than 'how many do yoga only' — it still includes the 11 who also do pilates. Adding the overlap instead of subtracting it, 32 + 11 = 43, moves in the wrong direction entirely. And writing down 11 gives the number who do both activities, which is the opposite of yoga only.
- (d) 9 — Method: each of the first spin's 3 outcomes can be paired with each of the second spin's 3 outcomes, so the two counts are multiplied together. Working: 3 × 3 = 9 ordered pairs. Answer: 9. Watch out: writing down 6 comes either from adding the two spins' counts, 3 + 3, instead of multiplying them, or from listing colour pairs without order, treating (red, blue) as the same entry as (blue, red) — both shortcuts miss outcomes that the ordered list contains. Writing down 3 lists only a single spin's outcomes and never pairs the two spins up at all. And writing down 27 treats the spinner as though it had been spun three times, 3 × 3 × 3, one spin too many.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.