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
- (b) 3 pupils — Method: an expected frequency is the probability multiplied by the number of trials, so multiply the probability by the number of pupils. Working: 30 × 1/10 means finding one tenth of 30, and 30 ÷ 10 = 3. Answer: 3 pupils would be expected to have a nut allergy. The distractors: 27 pupils comes from working out how many are expected NOT to have the allergy, 30 − 3, instead of how many are; 10 pupils comes from reading the 10 in the fraction 1/10 as the number of pupils; 1 pupil comes from reading the numerator of the fraction as the expected number.
- (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.
- (d) 5 — Being red and not being red are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of red is 1 − 0.8 = 0.2. The number of red counters is 0.2 × 25 = 5. Using 0.8 directly as the probability of red, without taking the complement, gives 0.8 × 25 = 20 — the number of counters that are NOT red. Sharing the 25 counters equally between the three colours, ignoring the given probability altogether, gives 25 ÷ 3 ≈ 8. Misreading the total as 20 counters instead of 25 gives 0.2 × 20 = 4.
- (c) 3/7 — Method: every counter is equally likely to be taken, so write the number of red counters over the total number of counters in the bag. Working: the bag holds 3 + 2 + 2 = 7 counters, of which 3 are red. Answer: 3/7, a value between 0 and 1 and just below the middle of the scale. The distractors: 4/7 comes from giving the probability that the counter is not red, counting the 2 blue and 2 green instead; 2/7 comes from counting one of the other colours by mistake and giving 2 counters over the total; 3/4 comes from writing the 3 red counters over the 4 counters that are not red instead of over all 7 counters.
- (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.
- (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) 6/25 — The probability of winning on any one spin is 2/5, and the probability of losing on any one spin is 3/5. Since the spins are independent, multiply the probability of winning on the first spin by the probability of losing on the second spin: 2/5 × 3/5 = 6/25. A candidate who answers 4/25 has used the winning probability for both spins, 2/5 × 2/5. A candidate who answers 9/25 has used the losing probability for both spins, 3/5 × 3/5. A candidate who answers 3/10 has treated the spins as if they were dependent, reducing the second spin's denominator to 4.
- (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.
- (b) She is wrong; 12 rolls is too few to judge — Method: compare the result with what is expected, then ask whether the experiment is long enough for a difference to mean anything. Working: if the dice were fair the expected number of sixes in 12 rolls is 12 × 1 ÷ 6 = 2, so 4 sixes is 2 above what was expected. But over only 12 rolls a result like this turns up often by chance: the relative frequency here is 4/12, which is 1/3, and over so few trials a relative frequency can sit well away from 1/6 with no bias at all. Answer: Erin is wrong, because 12 rolls is far too few to decide; she should roll the dice many more times and see whether the relative frequency settles near 1/6. The distractors: saying she is right because 4 beats the expected 2 uses the correct expected value but treats any difference as proof, which so short an experiment cannot give; saying a fair dice gives each score twice in 12 rolls treats an expected value as a guaranteed one; saying that 4 sixes in 12 rolls cancels down to 1 in 6 mis-cancels the fraction, because 4/12 is 1/3, which is twice 1/6, so that comment reaches the right verdict from arithmetic that is wrong.
- (d) 315 — The relative frequency from the survey is 42 ÷ 120 = 0.35, so the expected number who prefer paper bags among 900 shoppers is 0.35 × 900 = 315. Giving 42 as the answer reuses the original survey count without scaling it up to 900 shoppers at all. Finding the expected number who prefer PLASTIC bags instead of paper, using the relative frequency 78 ÷ 120 = 0.65, gives 0.65 × 900 = 585. Using 1000 shoppers instead of the 900 actually stated gives 0.35 × 1000 = 350.
- (a) 6.75% — Finishing, retiring and being disqualified are exhaustive, so the three percentages sum to 100%: 100% − 68.5% − 24.75% = 6.75%. Adding the two given percentages instead of subtracting them from 100% gives 68.5% + 24.75% = 93.25%, the combined probability of finishing or retiring, not of being disqualified. Subtracting only the retiring percentage from 100% and forgetting the finishing percentage gives 100% − 24.75% = 75.25%. Subtracting only the finishing percentage and forgetting the retiring percentage gives 100% − 68.5% = 31.50%.
- (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.
- (b) 22.8% — Relative frequency as a percentage is the faulty count divided by the total, then multiplied by 100: 33 ÷ 145 × 100 = 22.76, which rounds to 22.8%. Giving 33.0% as the answer uses the frequency, 33, directly as a percentage without dividing by the total 145 at all. Rounding 22.76 down to 22.7% instead of up applies the wrong rounding direction at the first decimal place. Finding the relative frequency of the bulbs that were NOT faulty first: 145 − 33 = 112, and 112 ÷ 145 × 100 = 77.24, answers the opposite question and rounds to 77.2%.
- (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) 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.