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
- (c) 300 — Expected number = probability × number of trials = 0.15 × 2,000 = 300. Moving the decimal point one place too far, using 0.015 instead of 0.15, gives 2,000 × 0.015 = 30. Working out the expected number of letters that are NOT bills, using the complement 1 − 0.15 = 0.85, gives 2,000 × 0.85 = 1,700. Rounding 0.15 up to 0.2 before multiplying gives 2,000 × 0.2 = 400.
- (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.
- (b) 120 — Purple's probability is its angle out of the full circle: 144° ÷ 360° = 2/5. Expected number on purple = 2/5 × 300 = 120. Assuming the three colours are equally likely, ignoring their different angles, gives 300 ÷ 3 = 100. Using orange's angle, 90°, instead of purple's 144° gives a probability of 1/4, so 300 × 1/4 = 75. Treating 144 as a percentage instead of finding its fraction of 360° gives 300 × 0.144 = 43.2, which rounds to 43.
- (c) 90 — Method: over many future trials the expected number of successes is the number of trials multiplied by the probability of a success. Working: the sections are equal, so each is equally likely and P(red) is 3 out of 8. Over 240 spins the expected number of reds is 240 × 3 ÷ 8 = 90. Answer: about 90 of the spins would be expected to land on red. The distractors: 150 uses the 5 sections that are not red, 240 × 5 ÷ 8 = 150, which is the expected number of spins that do not land on red; 30 is 240 ÷ 8 and is the expected count for one single section; 80 comes from dividing by the number of red sections instead of by the number of sections, 240 ÷ 3 = 80.
- (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.
- (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) Red — Theoretical probability is 1/3 ≈ 0.333 for each colour. Red's relative frequency is 38/90 ≈ 0.422, above 1/3, so red is over-represented. Blue's relative frequency is 26/90 ≈ 0.289, below 1/3, so blue is under-represented, not over. Green's relative frequency is also 26/90 ≈ 0.289, below 1/3 for the same reason. Since red's relative frequency clearly exceeds 1/3, it is not true that none of the colours are over-represented.
- (a) Ben, because a larger sample is closer to the theory — Method: a relative frequency is an estimate of a probability, and for an unbiased experiment that estimate tends towards the theoretical value as the sample grows. Working: Priya's estimate rests on 50 results, so a few unexpected heads move it a long way; one extra head shifts her relative frequency by 1 ÷ 50 = 0.02. Ben's estimate rests on 500 results, where one extra head shifts his relative frequency by only 1 ÷ 500 = 0.002. The larger sample therefore swings far less around the true value. Answer: Ben's relative frequency is the one more likely to be close, because a larger unbiased sample tends closer to the theoretical probability. The distractors: saying a small sample is less affected by luck reverses the result, since it is the small sample that swings most; saying every flip is a separate random event is true of the flips themselves but says nothing about the estimates, and is often used to argue wrongly that the number of trials does not matter; saying 500 flips must give exactly 250 heads confuses an expected value with a guaranteed one, and 500 flips very rarely give exactly 250 heads.
- (c) 0.5 — Method: count the favourable outcomes, write them over the total number of equally likely outcomes and then divide to turn the fraction into a decimal. Working: the odd scores are 1, 3 and 5, which is 3 of the 6 equally likely scores, so the probability is 3/6, and 3 ÷ 6 = 0.5. Answer: 0.5, the middle of the 0 to 1 probability scale. The distractors: 0.33 comes from listing only 3 and 5 as odd and working out 2 ÷ 6; 0.17 comes from giving the probability of one particular odd score, 1 ÷ 6; 0.3 comes from writing '3 out of 6' as 0.3, reading the 3 straight off as tenths instead of dividing.
- (d) 75% — Method: count how many cards are not hearts, write that count over the total number of cards, cancel the fraction down and then turn it into a percentage. Working: 52 − 13 = 39 cards are not hearts, so the probability is 39/52; dividing the numerator and the denominator by 13 gives 3/4, and 3/4 = 0.75, so 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%, three quarters of the way along the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: 25% comes from giving the probability that the card is a heart, 13 out of 52, which cancels to 1/4; 50% comes from reading 'not a heart' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 39% comes from writing the count of 39 cards straight down as the percentage without comparing it with the 52 cards in the pack.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 41/160 — In total, 27 + 14 = 41 of the 160 employees cycle to work, so the probability is 41/160 (41 and 160 share no common factor, so this is already in its simplest form). Writing 27/160 is wrong because it only counts the full-time cyclists and leaves out the 14 part-time cyclists. Writing 41/90 is wrong because it uses the full-time total (90) as the denominator instead of the whole survey (160). Writing 1/5 is wrong because it only uses the part-time branch, simplifying 14/70 to 1/5 and ignoring the full-time cyclists completely. The probability is 41/160.
- (c) Game Y — 0.4 is greater than 3/8. — Converting 3/8 to a decimal gives 3 ÷ 8 = 0.375, and 0.4 is greater than 0.375, so game Y gives the better chance of winning: 'Game Y — 0.4 is greater than 3/8.' Comparing the numerator 3 to the digit 0 in front of the decimal point in 0.4 compares two unrelated numbers and gives 'Game X — 3 is greater than 0, the units digit of 0.4.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning more chances, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Game X — 3/8 has the larger denominator.' Rounding 0.375 to 0.4 to one decimal place makes the two values look equal, but they are not exactly equal, so 'Equal — 3/8 rounds to 0.4 to one decimal place' mistakes a rounded match for a true one.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.