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) 15 — Method: each of Spinner A's outcomes can be paired with each of Spinner B's outcomes, so the two counts are combined by multiplying, not adding. Working: Spinner A has 3 outcomes and Spinner B has 5, so there are 3 × 5 = 15 equally likely outcomes in total. Answer: 15. Watch out: adding the two counts, 3 + 5 = 8, undercounts drastically — every one of Spinner A's 3 outcomes pairs with all 5 of Spinner B's outcomes, not just one each. Writing down 3 counts Spinner A alone and leaves Spinner B out completely. And writing down 25 comes from squaring Spinner B's own outcome count, 5 × 5, and forgetting Spinner A altogether.
- (b) 0.45 — Winning a toy, winning a sweet and winning neither are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1. P(toy) + P(sweet) = 0.15 + 0.4 = 0.55. P(neither) = 1 − 0.55 = 0.45. Adding 0.15 and 0.4 and stopping there gives 0.55, which is the probability of winning a toy or a sweet, not of winning neither. Subtracting only 0.15 from 1 gives 0.85, and ignores the sweet probability entirely. Subtracting only 0.4 from 1 gives 0.6, and ignores the toy probability entirely.
- (d) 136 — 15% of 160 = 0.15 × 160 = 24 patients reported side effects, so 160 − 24 = 136 did not. Stopping after finding the number who reported side effects, 24, answers the wrong question — it is not the number who did NOT report them. Misreading '15%' as a raw count of 15 patients, rather than a percentage, gives 160 − 15 = 145. Subtracting 15% of 160 twice, 160 − 24 − 24 = 112, double-counts the side-effect group.
- (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.
- (d) 5/12 — The possible totals are 2 to 12. The prime totals are 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11, with 1, 2, 4, 6 and 2 ways to make them, giving 1 + 2 + 4 + 6 + 2 = 15 outcomes out of 36, so the probability is 15/36 = 5/12. Choosing 7/18 comes from forgetting that a total of 2 counts as prime, giving 14/36 = 7/18 instead. Choosing 19/36 comes from wrongly including a total of 9 as a prime number, adding its 4 ways to the correct 15 to get 19/36. Choosing 13/36 comes from forgetting the 2 ways of making a total of 11, giving 13/36 instead of 15/36.
- (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.
- (c) 120 — 27 of the 45 sweets are orange (45 − 18 = 27), so the probability of taking an orange sweet is 27/45 = 3/5, and 200 × 3/5 = 120. Writing 80 is wrong because 200 × 18/45 = 80 uses the LEMON sweets' fraction instead of orange. Writing 182 is wrong because it takes the 18 lemon sweets away from the 200 repeats (200 − 18 = 182), applying the ‘the rest are orange’ subtraction to the number of goes instead of to the 45 sweets in the bag. Writing 27 is wrong because it is simply the number of orange sweets in the bag — it has not been scaled up to account for the 200 repeats. The expected number of times an orange sweet is taken is 120.
- (c) £3.10 — Aisha's tickets cost 8 × 50p = £4.00. Her expected winnings are (8/400) × £45 = £0.90, since she holds 8 of the 400 tickets. Her expected loss is the cost minus the expected winnings: £4.00 − £0.90 = £3.10. Writing £4.00 is wrong because it is only the cost of her tickets, with no account taken of the expected winnings she might get back. Writing £0.90 is wrong because that is her expected WINNINGS, not her loss — the cost has not been subtracted. Writing £3.89 is wrong because it uses 1 ticket instead of her actual 8 tickets when working out the expected winnings: (1/400) × £45 = £0.1125, giving £4.00 − £0.11 = £3.89. Aisha should expect to lose £3.10.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 40% — 32 out of the 80 people chose Coffee, so the percentage is (32 ÷ 80) × 100 = 40%. Choosing 32% comes from treating 32 as if it were already a percentage out of 100, instead of dividing by the actual total of 80 people surveyed. Choosing 25% comes from using the Tea row instead of the Coffee row, (20 ÷ 80) × 100 = 25%. Choosing 20% comes from using the Juice row instead of the Coffee row, (16 ÷ 80) × 100 = 20%.
- (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.
- (b) 0.55 — Method: it is easier to find the probability that Ffion wins NEITHER stage, then subtract that from 1. Working: P(lose stage 1) = 1 − 0.4 = 0.6, and P(lose stage 2) = 1 − 0.25 = 0.75. P(neither) = 0.6 × 0.75 = 0.45. P(at least one) = 1 − 0.45 = 0.55. Answer: 0.55. Watch out: adding the two win probabilities, 0.4 + 0.25 = 0.65, treats winning both as impossible and overcounts — that is not how independent probabilities combine. Multiplying the two win probabilities, 0.4 × 0.25 = 0.1, gives the probability of winning BOTH stages, not at least one. And stopping at 0.45, the probability of winning neither stage, forgets the final step of subtracting from 1.
- (c) Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%. — Converting 11/32 to a decimal gives 11 ÷ 32 = 0.34375, which is greater than 34% (0.34), so Noah has the better save rate: 'Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%.' Comparing the raw numbers 34 and 11 directly, without converting the fraction to the same form, gives 'Elin — 34 is bigger than 11.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning a bigger value, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Noah — 32 is a bigger denominator.' Rounding 34.375% to 34% to the nearest whole percent hides the difference and gives 'Equal — both round to 34% to the nearest percent.'
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.