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) 500 — Method: the expected number of successes is the number of trials multiplied by the probability, so to find the number of trials, divide the expected number by the probability. Working: let n be the number of seeds planted. Then n multiplied by 0.6 must come to 300, so n = 300 ÷ 0.6 = 500. Answer: the grower should plant 500 seeds. The distractors: 180 comes from multiplying instead of dividing, 300 × 0.6 = 180, which answers how many of 300 seeds would germinate; 750 comes from dividing by the probability of not germinating, 300 ÷ 0.4 = 750; 120 comes from multiplying by that same 0.4, 300 × 0.4 = 120.
- (a) Class A — Class A: 18/24 = 0.75 = 75%. Class B: 21/30 = 0.7 = 70%. Since 75% > 70%, class A had the greater proportion passing, even though fewer pupils passed there in total. Choosing class B compares the raw numbers of pupils who passed (21 > 18) rather than the proportions. The two proportions are not equal — 0.75 and 0.7 are different values, so the two classes did not have the same pass rate. The class sizes being different does not prevent a comparison: converting each to a proportion makes the two classes directly comparable, so the answer can be determined.
- (d) 24 — There are 4 choices for the first digit. Once that digit is used, 3 digits remain for the second position, and then 2 digits remain for the third position: 4 × 3 × 2 = 24 codes. Choosing 64 comes from allowing a digit to be reused at every position, 4 × 4 × 4 = 64, which is not allowed here since no digit repeats. Choosing 12 comes from multiplying only the first two positions, 4 × 3 = 12, and forgetting that a third digit is also chosen from the digits that remain. Choosing 6 comes from counting only the arrangements of one single set of three digits, 3 × 2 × 1 = 6, and forgetting that there are 4 different sets of three digits that can be chosen from 2, 3, 4 and 5.
- (d) 5/18 — Method: list every ordered pair of dice scores whose difference is 1, then divide by the 36 equally likely pairs. Working: the pairs with a difference of 1 are (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (3, 4), (4, 3), (4, 5), (5, 4), (5, 6) and (6, 5), which is 10 pairs out of 36, cancelling down to 5/18. Answer: 5/18. Watch out: writing down 5/36 lists only the 5 pairs going up, (1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 4), (4, 5) and (5, 6), and misses that each one has a matching pair the other way round, such as (2, 1) — the two dice are different objects, and order matters, so each of those 5 gaps counts twice. Writing down 1/6 treats the six possible differences, 0 to 5, as equally likely and picks 1 out of 6 of them, but a difference of 1 is reached by far more pairs of scores than a difference of 5 is, so the six differences are not equally likely. And writing down 1/4 comes from adding the two dice's outcome counts instead of multiplying them, 6 + 6 = 12, and grouping the six scores into just three non-overlapping pairs one apart, {1, 2}, {3, 4} and {5, 6}, giving 3 out of that wrong pool of 12.
- (c) 4/5 — Add the counts of everyone who owns a cat, a dog, or both: 12 + 15 + 5 = 32 out of 40 people, which simplifies to 4/5. Leaving out the 5 people who own both, and adding only the two only-groups, gives 27/40. Using the 8 people who own neither, instead of everyone who owns at least one pet, gives 8/40 = 1/5. Counting the 5 people who own both twice, once alongside each only-group as well as on their own, gives 12 + 15 + 5 + 5 = 37 out of 40, or 37/40.
- (c) 325 — Method: first find the relative frequency of NOT landing on red from the 200 spins, then scale that up to 500 spins. Working: non-red results = 50 + 80 = 130, out of 200 spins, so P(not red) = 130 ÷ 200 = 0.65. Expected non-red results in 500 spins = 500 × 0.65 = 325. Answer: 325. Watch out: writing down 175 finds the expected number of RED results instead, 70 ÷ 200 × 500 = 175, answering the opposite of what was asked. Writing down 250 assumes landing red or not landing red must be a fair 50-50 split, but the spinner is biased and the actual results do not split evenly. And writing down 130 stops after finding how many of the 200 spins were non-red and forgets to scale that figure up to the 500 spins asked for.
- (d) 12 — There are 120 − 70 = 50 female members. 38 of them play netball, so the rest play football: 50 − 38 = 12. Writing 45 is wrong because that is the number of MALE members who play football, not female. Writing 38 again is wrong because that is the female netball total, not the female football total — the question needs the total minus 38, not 38 itself. Writing 25 is wrong because that comes from the male branch (70 − 45 = 25 male netball players), not the female branch. 12 female members play football.
- (b) 50 — There are 180 − 100 = 80 south-plot gardeners. 30 of them do not grow organically, so the rest do: 80 − 30 = 50. Writing 64 is wrong because that is the number of NORTH-plot gardeners who grow organically, not south. Writing 30 again is wrong because that is the number of south-plot gardeners who do NOT grow organically — the question asks for those who do. Writing 80 is wrong because that is the whole south-plot total, without subtracting the 30 who do not grow organically. The answer is 50.
- (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.
- (d) 0.420 — Method: use the relative frequency worked out from the larger number of trials as the best estimate of the probability, since a bigger sample tends to sit closer to the true probability. Working: 84 out of 200 drops land open end up, so the relative frequency from the total is 84 ÷ 200 = 0.420. Answer: 0.420. Watch out: writing down 0.650 comes from 13 ÷ 20, using only the first, much smaller sample instead of the total. Writing down 0.535 comes from averaging 0.650 and 0.420, treating the 20-drop run and the 200-drop run as equally reliable instead of using the larger sample on its own. And writing down 0.580 comes from 1 − 0.420, working out the probability that the bottle top lands the other way up instead of open end up.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) £0.30 profit for the stall — The stall keeps the £1.50 entry fee whatever happens, and expects to pay out prize × probability of winning = £6 × 0.2 = £1.20 on average. So its expected profit per game is £1.50 − £1.20 = £0.30. Reporting the expected pay-out of £1.20 itself as the profit forgets that the stall also keeps the entry fee. Assuming the player always wins gives an expected cost of £6 − £1.50 = £4.50, treated as a loss for the stall. Using the probability of NOT winning, 0.8, to find the expected pay-out gives £6 × 0.8 = £4.80, and £1.50 − £4.80 = −£3.30, a £3.30 loss.
- (b) likely — On the probability scale, 'certain' is reserved for a probability of exactly 1, and 'evens' describes a probability of exactly 0.5. A probability of 0.9 is high but not equal to 1, so the correct word is 'likely'. Choosing 'certain' treats a probability close to 1 as if it were exactly 1, which it is not. Choosing 'evens' misjudges 0.9 as being close to the midpoint of the scale, when it is close to the 'certain' end instead. Choosing 'unlikely' reads the scale the wrong way round, as if a high probability meant a low chance of happening.
- (b) 3/4 — Method: a card either is a diamond or is not a diamond, so those two outcomes form an exhaustive set and their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: P(diamond) = 1/4, so P(not a diamond) = 1 − 1/4; writing 1 as 4/4 gives 4/4 − 1/4. Answer: 3/4. The distractors: 1/4 comes from giving back the probability that the card is a diamond instead of its complement; 1/2 comes from reading 'not a diamond' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 3/52 comes from doing the subtraction 4 − 1 = 3 on the suits but then writing that 3 over the 52 cards in the pack instead of over the 4 suits.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.