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) 26 — Method: n(G ∪ H) = n(G) + n(H) − n(G ∩ H), taking off the overlap once so the pupils who study both subjects are not counted twice. Working: 19 + 15 − 8 = 26. Answer: 26. Watch out: adding 19 and 15 without taking off the overlap gives 34, which counts the 8 pupils who study both subjects twice. Taking the 8 off both totals before adding, 19 − 8 + 15 − 8 = 18, counts only the pupils who study exactly one of the two subjects and leaves out the 8 who study both. And writing down 11, which is 19 − 8, gives the number who study geography only, not the number who study geography or history or both.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 5/36 — Method: list every result of the two dice as an ordered pair, first score then second score, count the pairs that give the total asked for and divide by how many pairs the list holds. Working: each dice can show 6 scores, so there are 6 × 6 = 36 equally likely ordered pairs. The pairs whose scores add to 6 are (1, 5), (2, 4), (3, 3), (4, 2) and (5, 1), which is 5 pairs out of the 36. Answer: the probability is 5/36. The distractors: 4/36 comes from listing (1, 5), (5, 1), (2, 4) and (4, 2) and leaving (3, 3) out, because a double does not look like a pair that can be turned round; 5/12 comes from finding the 5 pairs but taking the number of possible results to be 6 + 6 = 12, adding the two dice instead of multiplying them; 1/11 comes from treating the eleven possible totals 2, 3, 4 and so on up to 12 as equally likely, so that a total of 6 is one result out of eleven.
- (b) 4 — With 150 rolls and probability 1/6 for each number, the expected count is 150 ÷ 6 = 25. Comparing each actual count with 25: 1 is 22 (3 below), 2 is 27 (2 above), 3 is 24 (1 below), 4 is 34 (9 above), 5 is 21 (4 below) and 6 is 22 (3 below). Number 4 is furthest above its expected count, so it is the most over-represented. Number 2 is also above its expected count, but by only 2, far less than 4's 9. Number 3's count of 24 is below the expected 25, so it is under-represented, not over. Number 6's count of 22 is also below the expected 25, so it too is under-represented.
- (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) unlikely and evens — The marked points are impossible (0), unlikely (0.25), evens (0.5) and certain (1). Since 0.25 < 0.3 < 0.5, the probability 0.3 lies between unlikely and evens. Choosing 'impossible and unlikely' treats 0.3 as below 0.25, which it is not. Choosing 'evens and certain' treats 0.3 as above 0.5, which it is not. Choosing 'impossible and evens' skips over the unlikely marker altogether, even though 0.3 is above it.
- (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.
- (b) Priya — The larger the number of trials, the closer a relative frequency tends to be to the true probability. Priya made 200 drops, more than Freya's 20, Malik's 50 or Tom's 80, so her relative frequency gives the best estimate. Freya's estimate is based on only 20 drops, the smallest sample, so it is the least reliable of the four. Malik's 50 drops and Tom's 80 drops are both larger than Freya's but still well short of Priya's 200.
- (b) 40% — Method: a fraction becomes a percentage by scaling it so that its denominator is 100, or equivalently by dividing the numerator by the denominator and multiplying the decimal by 100. Working: 5 × 20 = 100, so the numerator is scaled by 20 as well, 2 × 20 = 40, giving 40/100; the same figure comes from 2 ÷ 5 = 0.4 and 0.4 × 100 = 40. Answer: 40%. The distractors: 20% comes from dividing 100 by the denominator alone, 100 ÷ 5 = 20, which is the percentage for 1/5 and never uses the numerator 2; 4% comes from finding the decimal 0.4 correctly and then writing the 4 down as the percentage instead of multiplying by 100; 2% comes from scaling only the denominator up to 100 and leaving the numerator as it was, giving 2/100.
- (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%.
- (a) 195 — The relative frequency from the trial is 52 ÷ 80 = 0.65, and the expected number of point-up landings in 300 drops is 0.65 × 300 = 195. Giving 52 as the answer reuses the original count from the 80-drop trial without scaling it up to 300 drops at all. Misreading 52 out of 80 as 52% and finding 52% of 300 gives 156. Finding the expected number of point-DOWN landings instead of point-up, using the relative frequency 28 ÷ 80 = 0.35, gives 0.35 × 300 = 105.
- (b) 3/10 — The number who use at least one app is 90 − 20 = 70. Since 55 + 42 double-counts the overlap, n(X ∩ Y) = 55 + 42 − 70 = 27, so P(both) = 27/90 = 3/10. Forgetting to subtract the 20 who use neither, and using the full 90 as the union, gives 55 + 42 − 90 = 7, so 7/90. Reporting the probability of using X or Y (or both), 70/90 = 7/9, answers a different question about the union, not the overlap. Reporting the probability of using neither app, 20/90 = 2/9, is the complement of the union, not the intersection.
- (b) 3 — Method: build the list of possible results systematically, taking the first flip as a head and then as a tail, and keeping the two flips in order so that a head then a tail is a different result from a tail then a head; then count the results that match the description. Working: with a head at the first flip the results are HH and HT, and with a tail at the first flip they are TH and TT, so the list is HH, HT, TH, TT — four results in all. The results containing at least one tail are HT, TH and TT. Answer: 3 of the results in the list contain at least one tail. The distractors: 2 comes from treating a head and a tail as one result however they are ordered, which shortens the list to HH, HT, TT so that only two entries hold a tail; 1 comes from reading 'at least one tail' as a tail at both flips, which is the single result TT; 4 comes from counting the tails written across the list — one in HT, one in TH and two in TT — instead of counting the results that contain a tail.
- (c) 10 — There are 5 possible cards and 2 possible coin results, so listing every pair gives 5 × 2 = 10 equally likely outcomes. Choosing 5 comes from listing only the card outcomes and forgetting the coin flip adds a second stage to each one. Choosing 7 comes from adding the two stages instead of combining them, 5 + 2 = 7, rather than pairing every card with every coin result. Choosing 20 comes from counting each coin result twice for every card, 5 × 2 × 2 = 20, effectively pairing every card with the coin twice over.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.