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) 0.7 — Method: delayed and not delayed are the only two outcomes, so the two probabilities form an exhaustive set and add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: 1 − 0.3, written as 1.0 − 0.3 with the decimal points lined up. Answer: 0.7. The distractors: 0.3 comes from giving back the probability that the train is delayed instead of its complement; 0.97 comes from lining the decimal points up wrongly and working out 1.00 − 0.03; 0.5 comes from assuming that delayed and not delayed must be equally likely because there are only two outcomes.
- (d) 3/5 — The first tile drawn is a consonant with probability 4/5, since 4 of the 5 letters in MATHS are consonants. Since it is not replaced, 3 consonants remain out of the 4 tiles left, so the second tile is a consonant with probability 3/4. Multiplying gives 4/5 × 3/4 = 3/5. Choosing 4/5 comes from only using the probability for the first draw and forgetting the second draw changes once a tile is removed. Choosing 3/4 comes from only using the probability for the second draw on its own. Choosing 16/25 comes from treating the two draws as independent, using 4/5 × 4/5 = 16/25, which would only be correct if the first tile were replaced before the second draw.
- (d) 1/15 — The probability that the first bead is red is 3/10. Since the first bead is not put back, there are now only 2 red beads left out of 9 beads in total, so the probability that the second bead is also red is 2/9. Multiplying these, 3/10 × 2/9 = 6/90 = 1/15. A candidate who answers 9/100 has treated the beads as replaced, using 3/10 twice. A candidate who answers 3/50 has correctly reduced the red count to 2 for the second pick but forgotten that the total also falls to 9, using 2/10 instead. A candidate who answers 5/19 has added the numerators and added the denominators, (3+2)/(10+9), instead of multiplying.
- (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.
- (c) 1/10 — On the adult branch, 210 − 189 = 21 appointments were missed. There are 300 − 210 = 90 child appointments, and 90 − 81 = 9 of those were missed. In total, 21 + 9 = 30 appointments were missed, out of 300: 30/300 = 1/10. Writing 7/100 is wrong because 21/300 simplifies to 7/100, and 21 only counts the adult branch, leaving out the 9 missed child appointments. Writing 3/100 is wrong because 9/300 simplifies to 3/100, and 9 only counts the child branch, leaving out the 21 missed adult appointments. Writing 1/9 is wrong because it divides the 30 missed appointments by the 270 that were attended (300 − 30) instead of by the whole 300 booked. The probability is 1/10.
- (b) 3 times as likely — Method: to say how many times as likely one event is as another, divide the larger probability by the smaller one; subtracting them gives the gap between the two probabilities, not the multiple. Working: both probabilities are counted in tenths, so 6/10 ÷ 2/10 compares 6 tenths with 2 tenths, and 6 ÷ 2 = 3. Answer: winning at the hoopla stall is 3 times as likely, which is why 6/10 sits three times as far along the 0 to 1 scale as 2/10. The distractors: 4 times as likely comes from subtracting the two counts, 6 − 2, instead of dividing them, which measures the gap rather than the multiple; 6 times as likely comes from reading the larger probability's 6 tenths straight off as the multiple without ever comparing it with the 2 tenths at the other stall; 12 times as likely comes from multiplying the two counts, 6 × 2, instead of dividing one by the other.
- (b) 10 — The probability that the spinner lands on green is its angle out of the whole circle: 60° ÷ 360° = 1/6. Expected number of times on green = 1/6 × 60 = 10. Assuming the three colours are equally likely because there are three sectors, regardless of their different angles, gives 60 ÷ 3 = 20. Using red's angle of 180° instead of green's 60° gives a probability of 1/2, so 60 × 1/2 = 30. Treating green's angle, 60°, as a percentage instead of finding its fraction of 360° gives 60 × 0.60 = 36.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 3/8 — Method: write out every result of the three coins as a string of three letters, H for heads and T for tails, count the results that match the description and divide by how many results the list holds. Working: each coin lands two ways and no coin affects another, so the list holds 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 equally likely results. Exactly two heads means one coin lands on tails and the other two on heads, so the results are HHT, HTH and THH — 3 of the 8. Answer: the probability is 3/8. The distractors: 4/8 comes from reading 'exactly two heads' as 'at least two heads' and counting HHH as well; 2/8 comes from a list made without a system, in which HHT and THH are written down and HTH, the result with the tail between the two heads, is missed; 6/8 comes from counting 3 × 2 = 6 ways of picking which two of the three coins show heads, which counts every pair of coins twice, once in each order.
- (b) (48/52) × (47/51) — Method: for two deals one after the other with nothing put back, multiply the probability of the first by the probability of the second worked out from the cards that are left. Working: 52 − 4 = 48 cards are not aces, so the first card is not an ace with probability 48/52. One card has now gone and it was not an ace, so 51 cards remain and 47 of them are not aces, giving 47/51. Answer: the probability is (48/52) × (47/51). The distractors: (48/52) × (48/52) comes from leaving the pack at 52 cards for the second deal, which is only true if the first card is replaced; (4/52) × (3/51) comes from working out the probability that both cards ARE aces instead of neither; (4/52) × (4/51) comes from the same misreading with the ace count left at 4 while the total is reduced, adjusting only half of the second fraction.
- (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.
- (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) £100 — Method: find the expected number of wins, turn that into the expected pay out, then compare it with what the games cost. Working: the expected number of wins is 200 × 0.15 = 30. Each win pays £10, so the expected pay out is 30 × 10 = 300 pounds. Playing 200 times at £2 a go costs 200 × 2 = 400 pounds. The expected loss is 400 − 300 = 100 pounds. Answer: Amir should expect to be about £100 down. The distractors: £300 is the expected winnings on their own, with the cost of playing never taken off; £400 is the total cost of playing, with the winnings never taken off; £700 comes from adding the two totals, 400 + 300 = 700, instead of subtracting one from the other.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.