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) 10 — Method: the number using at least one machine is the running total plus the weights total minus the overlap, since the overlap would otherwise be added in twice; the number using neither is the survey total minus that. Working: at least one machine = 24 + 20 − 9 = 35. Neither = 45 − 35 = 10. Answer: 10. Watch out: subtracting 24 + 20 from 45 without adding the 9 back, 45 − 24 − 20 = 1, removes the overlap twice over instead of once. Writing down 15, which is 24 − 9, gives the number who use ONLY the running machines, not the number who use neither. And writing down 9 mistakes the overlap region for the region outside both circles altogether.
- (b) 10 — The number who use the pool or the sauna (or both) is the total minus those who use neither: 70 − 12 = 58. Since pool + sauna double-counts the overlap, n(P ∩ S) = 38 + 30 − 58 = 10. Adding the pool and sauna counts without subtracting the overlap at all gives 38 + 30 = 68, more members than are in the whole gym. Subtracting the sauna count from the union, 58 − 30 = 28, actually finds the number who use ONLY the pool, not both. Reporting the 'neither' count, 12, confuses it with the 'both' region — they describe opposite corners of the diagram.
- (b) £100 — Over 250 games, the expected total winnings are 250 × (1/5) × £12 = £600, since a player wins on 1 of the 5 equally likely sections. The total cost of playing is 250 × £2 = £500. The players' expected profit is the winnings minus the cost: £600 − £500 = £100. Writing £500 is wrong because that is only the total cost of playing, without any winnings included. Writing £600 is wrong because that is only the total expected winnings, without subtracting what was paid to play. Writing £2,500 is wrong because it assumes a win on every single game (250 × £12 = £3,000) instead of using the 1-in-5 probability, then subtracts the cost: £3,000 − £500 = £2,500. The players' expected profit over the 250 games is £100.
- (d) 75% — Method: count how many cards are not hearts, write that count over the total number of cards, cancel the fraction down and then turn it into a percentage. Working: 52 − 13 = 39 cards are not hearts, so the probability is 39/52; dividing the numerator and the denominator by 13 gives 3/4, and 3/4 = 0.75, so 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%, three quarters of the way along the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: 25% comes from giving the probability that the card is a heart, 13 out of 52, which cancels to 1/4; 50% comes from reading 'not a heart' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 39% comes from writing the count of 39 cards straight down as the percentage without comparing it with the 52 cards in the pack.
- (a) 1/12 — Method: for draws with nothing put back, multiply the probabilities of the three draws, reducing both the number of red counters and the total each time a red counter is removed. Working: the first counter is red with probability 5/10. One red counter has gone, so the second is red with probability 4/9, and then the third is red with probability 3/8. Multiplying gives 60/720. Answer: the probability is 1/12. The distractors: 1/8 comes from using 5/10 three times, which is what happens only if each counter is put back; 2/9 comes from stopping after two draws and giving 5/10 × 4/9; 3/50 comes from taking one off the red count each time but leaving the total at 10, giving 5/10 × 4/10 × 3/10.
- (d) 0.80 — Evens is exactly halfway along the scale, at 0.5, and 3/10 written as a decimal is 0.3. A probability 3/10 higher than evens is 0.5 + 0.3 = 0.80. Giving 0.30 as the answer converts the increase but never adds it to the value of evens. Adding the increase to 1, the 'certain' end of the scale, instead of to evens gives 1 + 0.3 = 1.30, which cannot be a probability. Writing 3/10 as 0.03 instead of 0.3, a place-value slip, gives 0.5 + 0.03 = 0.53.
- (c) 0.49 — The two rounds are independent, so multiply the probability of losing each round: 0.7 × 0.7 = 0.49. Choosing 0.7 comes from giving the probability of losing just one round, forgetting there are two rounds to combine. Choosing 1.4 comes from adding the two probabilities instead of multiplying, 0.7 + 0.7 = 1.4. Choosing 0.09 comes from using the probability of WINNING instead of losing, 0.3 × 0.3 = 0.09.
- (c) 9/25 — The frequency tree already shows the swim-and-cycle branch directly: 54 out of 150, which simplifies to 9/25. Adding both cycling branches together, 54 + 18 = 72, gives the total number of cyclists, so 72/150 = 12/25, not just those who also swim. Using the non-swimmers' cycling figure, 18, gives 18/150 = 3/25, the probability of cycling WITHOUT swimming. Using the swimmers' total of 90, before splitting by cycling, gives 90/150 = 3/5, the probability of swimming on its own.
- (b) 200 — Method: list the equally likely outcomes for the two coins before writing any probability, then multiply by the number of throws. Working: the equally likely outcomes are head then head, head then tail, tail then head, and tail then tail, so there are 4 of them. Two of those 4 give one head and one tail, so the probability is 2/4, which is 1/2. Over 400 throws the expected number is 400 × 1 ÷ 2 = 200. Answer: about 200 of the throws would be expected to give one head and one tail. The distractors: 133 comes from treating two heads, two tails and one of each as three equally likely results and working out 400 ÷ 3 = 133.3, then rounding; 100 comes from counting only head then tail as a success, giving 400 × 1 ÷ 4 = 100; 300 is the expected number of throws that do not give two heads, 400 × 3 ÷ 4 = 300.
- (b) 0.49 — Adding all four pupils' flips gives 40 + 25 + 20 + 15 = 100 flips in total, and adding their heads gives 24 + 10 + 9 + 6 = 49 heads in total, so the combined estimate is 49/100 = 0.49. Writing 0.46 is wrong because it averages the four pupils' individual rates (0.60, 0.40, 0.45 and 0.40) as if they all came from the same number of flips, which they do not — this ignores that Sam and Priti flipped far more times than Leo and Fatima. Writing 0.60 is wrong because it only uses Sam's own result (24/40 = 0.60), ignoring the other three pupils. Writing 0.40 is wrong because it only combines Priti and Fatima's results (16/40 = 0.40), leaving out Sam and Leo entirely. The combined estimate from all four pupils is 0.49.
- (c) Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%. — Converting 11/32 to a decimal gives 11 ÷ 32 = 0.34375, which is greater than 34% (0.34), so Noah has the better save rate: 'Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%.' Comparing the raw numbers 34 and 11 directly, without converting the fraction to the same form, gives 'Elin — 34 is bigger than 11.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning a bigger value, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Noah — 32 is a bigger denominator.' Rounding 34.375% to 34% to the nearest whole percent hides the difference and gives 'Equal — both round to 34% to the nearest percent.'
- (b) 1/2 — Method: for equally likely outcomes the probability is the number of favourable outcomes divided by the total number of outcomes, written in its simplest form. Working: the dice can show 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6, so there are 6 equally likely scores; the even scores are 2, 4 and 6, which is 3 of them, giving 3/6. Answer: 3/6 cancels to 1/2, which sits halfway along the 0 to 1 probability scale. The distractors: 1/3 comes from listing only 2 and 4 as the even scores and writing 2/6; 1/6 comes from giving the probability of one particular even score, such as the 2, rather than any even score; 2/3 comes from listing the even numbers as 0, 2, 4 and 6 and writing 4/6, forgetting that a dice has no 0 on it.
- (c) 170 — 68% of the 250 packets germinated: 250 × 0.68 = 170. Using the complement, the 32% that did NOT germinate, gives 250 × 0.32 = 80. Shifting the decimal point, using 0.068 instead of 0.68, gives 250 × 0.068 = 17. Rounding 68% up to 70% before multiplying gives 250 × 0.70 = 175.
- (c) No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6. — The theoretical probability of rolling a 6 on an ordinary dice is fixed at 1/6, worked out from the number of equally likely outcomes, and does not change however the dice is actually rolled. The relative frequency from this trial is 7/30, found from what happened in these particular 30 rolls. Since 7/30 and 1/6 are different numbers, the correct statement is 'No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6.' Assuming the two values must always match because they describe the same event gives 'Yes — relative frequency always equals theory.' Believing that an observed result redefines the theoretical probability gives 'Yes — the theoretical probability has now become 7/30.' Refusing to work out either value at all gives 'Neither can be found — 30 rolls is too few to tell', which ignores that both numbers CAN be calculated from the information given.
- (d) 0.468 — The probability that Leo does not wake up before his alarm is 1 − 0.35 = 0.65, and the probability that his sister does not is 1 − 0.28 = 0.72. Since the two events are independent, multiply the complements: 0.65 × 0.72 = 0.468. A candidate who answers 0.63 has added the two given probabilities, 0.35 + 0.28, instead of finding and multiplying the complements. A candidate who answers 0.098 has multiplied the two given probabilities directly, 0.35 × 0.28, without taking complements first. A candidate who answers 0.532 has correctly reached 0.468 but then subtracted it from 1 again by mistake.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.