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) 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.
- (a) No — the three probabilities sum to 1.10, over 1. — Winning, drawing and losing are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, so their probabilities must sum to exactly 1. Adding Freddie's three values gives 0.45 + 0.3 + 0.35 = 1.10, which is more than 1, so his probabilities cannot all be correct: 'No — the three probabilities sum to 1.10, over 1.' Checking only that each value lies between 0 and 1 accepts them as 'Yes — each probability lies between 0 and 1' without ever adding the three together. Judging by which outcome sounds most likely leads to 'Yes — winning has the highest single probability', which never checks the total either. Noting that a runner cannot win, draw and lose at once, and treating that alone as enough, gives 'Yes — the three outcomes are mutually exclusive' — but mutually exclusive outcomes that are also exhaustive must still sum to 1, and 1.10 does not.
- (b) 0.225 — The relative frequency of rain is the number of rainy days out of all days recorded: 9 ÷ 40 = 0.225, which is noticeably less than the forecaster's claimed 0.3. Using the number of dry days, 40 − 9 = 31, as the denominator instead of the total of 40 gives 9 ÷ 31 = 0.29 (2 d.p.). Simply reporting the forecaster's claimed value, 0.3, without calculating anything from the data at all, ignores the recorded results completely. Misplacing the decimal point, treating 9 out of 40 as 9%, gives 0.09 instead of 0.225.
- (a) 3/10 — Germinating and not germinating are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: 1 − 7/10 = 3/10. Writing 7/10 again gives the probability that the plant DOES germinate, not its complement. Putting the difference 10 − 7 = 3 over the original numerator instead of the original denominator gives 3/7. Inverting the correct answer, swapping its numerator and denominator, gives 10/3, which is impossible as a probability since it is greater than 1.
- (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.
- (d) 3/10 — Method: list the full possibility space as pairs of coin and spinner results, then count how many pairs satisfy both conditions and divide by the size of the whole space. Working: the coin gives 2 outcomes and the spinner gives 5, so the full space has 2 × 5 = 10 equally likely pairs. The pairs with a tail and an odd number are (T,1), (T,3) and (T,5), which is 3 out of 10. Answer: 3/10. Watch out: writing down 1/2 uses only the coin's own chance of a tail and ignores that the spinner also has to land on an odd number. Writing down 3/5 uses only the spinner's chance of landing on an odd number and ignores the coin altogether. And writing down 1/10 counts just one matching outcome, such as (T,1), instead of all three pairs that satisfy both conditions.
- (b) 0.4 — The two events are independent, so multiply the two probabilities: 0.8 × 0.5 = 0.4. Choosing 1.3 comes from adding the two probabilities instead of multiplying, 0.8 + 0.5 = 1.3. Choosing 0.3 comes from subtracting the two probabilities, 0.8 − 0.5 = 0.3, instead of multiplying them. Choosing 0.1 comes from using the probability that Ben is NOT on time, 1 − 0.8 = 0.2, and multiplying that by Freya's probability instead, 0.2 × 0.5 = 0.1.
- (c) 7/8 — Method: 'at least one head' is the opposite of 'no heads at all', so work out the probability of three tails and take it away from 1. Working: a flip that is not a head has probability 1/2, and the flips are independent, so three tails in a row has probability 1/2 × 1/2 × 1/2 = 1/8. Taking this from 8/8 leaves 7/8. Answer: the probability is 7/8. The distractors: 1/8 is the probability of three tails, written down without the final subtraction; 3/8 is the probability of exactly one head, which comes from reading 'at least one' as 'exactly one'; 1/2 comes from giving the probability of a head on a single flip and ignoring that three flips are made.
- (c) 0.65 — Overrunning and not overrunning are exhaustive: between them they cover every outcome, so their probabilities sum to 1. Work out 1 − 0.35 = 0.65. Writing 0.35 again is the probability that the appointment overruns, not its complement — the subtraction was never done. Adding instead of subtracting gives 1 + 0.35 = 1.35, which cannot be a probability at all. Subtracting each digit from 10 instead of borrowing from the 1, so 10 − 3 = 7 tenths and 10 − 5 = 5 hundredths, gives 0.75.
- (b) 1/6 — There are 2 outcomes for the coin and 3 outcomes for the spinner, giving 2 × 3 = 6 equally likely pairs: (H,X), (H,Y), (H,Z), (T,X), (T,Y), (T,Z). Only one of these, (H,Z), matches both conditions, so the probability is 1/6. A candidate who answers 1/3 has listed only the spinner's 3 outcomes and ignored the coin. A candidate who answers 1/2 has considered only the coin and ignored the spinner. A candidate who answers 1/5 has missed one pair when listing the possibility space, treating it as 5 outcomes instead of 6.
- (d) 32 — The frequency tree already shows the tea-and-coffee branch directly: of the 50 tea drinkers, 32 also drink coffee, so n(T ∩ C) = 32. Adding both coffee branches together, 32 + 6 = 38, gives n(C), the total number of coffee drinkers, not just those who also drink tea. Using the non-tea branch's figure, 6, describes people who drink coffee but NOT tea. Subtracting to get 50 − 32 = 18 finds the tea drinkers who do NOT drink coffee, the opposite region to the one asked for.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 1/5 — Method: list the pairs systematically, work out each total, then count the pairs that meet the condition and compare that count with the length of the list. Working: the pairs and their totals are 1 and 2 giving 3, 1 and 3 giving 4, 1 and 4 giving 5, 1 and 5 giving 6, 2 and 3 giving 5, 2 and 4 giving 6, 2 and 5 giving 7, 3 and 4 giving 7, 3 and 5 giving 8, and 4 and 5 giving 9. That is 10 pairs, of which 2 have a total of more than 7. Answer: the probability is 1/5. The distractors: 2/5 comes from counting the totals of exactly 7 as well, reading 'more than 7' as '7 or more'; 1/10 comes from finding only the pair 4 and 5 and missing that 3 and 5 also beat 7; 4/5 comes from counting the pairs on the wrong side of the condition, the 8 pairs whose total is 7 or less.
- (d) 1/15 — Method: a probability read from a frequency tree is the count at the end of the branch you want, divided by the total number in the whole experiment. Working: the branch for walking followed by the branch for being late ends with 6 pupils, and the experiment covers all 90 pupils, so the probability is 6/90. Dividing the top and the bottom by 6 gives 1/15. Answer: the probability is 1/15. The distractors: 3/25 is 6/50 and comes from dividing the 6 by the 50 walkers rather than by the whole group, which answers a different question about walkers only; 8/45 is 16/90 and comes from counting every late pupil, the 6 walkers and the 10 others together, instead of only the late walkers; 1/9 is 10/90 and comes from reading the late count on the branch for pupils who do not walk.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.