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
- (a) 0.48 — There are two ways to score exactly one throw: scoring on the first and missing the second, 0.6 × 0.4 = 0.24, or missing the first and scoring the second, 0.4 × 0.6 = 0.24. Adding these gives 0.24 + 0.24 = 0.48. Choosing 0.24 comes from working out only one of the two paths and forgetting the other one also gives exactly one score. Choosing 0.36 comes from working out the probability of scoring BOTH throws, 0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36, instead of exactly one. Choosing 0.84 comes from working out the probability of scoring AT LEAST one throw, 1 − 0.4 × 0.4 = 0.84, instead of exactly one.
- (b) 0.150 — The six scores are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1. The probability of not landing on 6 is 1 − 0.25 = 0.75, and this is shared equally between the other five scores, so each has probability 0.75 ÷ 5 = 0.150. Giving 0.750 as the answer stops after finding the probability of not landing on 6, without sharing it out between the five remaining scores. Dividing 0.75 by 6 instead of by 5 gives 0.125, wrongly including the score of 6 among the equally likely scores. Ignoring the bias completely and dividing 1 by all six scores gives 1 ÷ 6 = 0.167.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 1/6 — Method: write the results of the two dice as ordered pairs, count the pairs whose scores add to the total asked for, divide by the number of ordered pairs there are, then cancel the fraction down. Working: there are 6 × 6 = 36 equally likely ordered pairs. The pairs whose scores add to 7 are (1, 6), (2, 5), (3, 4), (4, 3), (5, 2) and (6, 1), which is 6 pairs, so the probability is 6/36. Dividing the top and the bottom by 6 gives 1/6. Answer: the probability is 1/6. The distractors: 7/36 comes from taking the number of favourable pairs to be 7 because 7 is the total asked for, confusing the size of a total with the number of ways of making it; 1/7 comes from using the 21 different combinations of two scores as the equally likely results, finding the 3 combinations 1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, and cancelling 3/21; 6/11 comes from counting the 6 favourable pairs correctly but dividing by the 11 possible totals from 2 to 12 rather than by the 36 pairs.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) £150 — Each game, the expected payout is 0.1 × £20 = £2, so the fête's expected profit per game is the £3 charged minus the £2 expected payout, £1. Over 150 games, that is 150 × £1 = £150. Writing £300 is wrong because 150 × £2 = £300 is the total expected PAYOUT, not the profit — it has not been subtracted from the entry fees. Writing £450 is wrong because 150 × £3 = £450 is the total money taken in entry fees, without accounting for what is expected to be paid out in prizes. Writing £1 is wrong because that is only the expected profit for ONE game — it has not been scaled up to all 150 games. The fête's expected profit is £150.
- (b) 0.15 — Method: success and failure are the only two outcomes of the task, so they form an exhaustive set and their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 1.00 so that both numbers have two decimal places gives 1.00 − 0.85; exchanging once, the hundredths give 10 − 5 = 5 and the tenths, now 9, give 9 − 8 = 1. Answer: 0.15, close to the left-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because the machine nearly always succeeds. The distractors: 0.85 comes from giving back the probability of success instead of the probability of failure; 0.25 comes from taking each decimal column from 10 on its own in 1.00 − 0.85, writing 10 − 5 = 5 in the hundredths and 10 − 8 = 2 in the tenths instead of reducing the tenths to 9 after the exchange; 0.5 comes from assuming that success and failure must be equally likely because there are only two outcomes.
- (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) No, because 3/8 + 5/12 + 1/6 = 23/24 — Using a common denominator of 24: 3/8 = 9/24, 5/12 = 10/24 and 1/6 = 4/24. Adding these numerators gives 9 + 10 + 4 = 23, so the three probabilities sum to 23/24, which is less than 1 — Zara is not correct. Adding the original numerators (3 + 5 + 1 = 9) over a denominator of 12 instead of converting each fraction properly gives 9/12 = 3/4, still less than 1 but the wrong fraction. Converting 1/6 to 5/24 instead of 4/24 (using the wrong scaling) makes the total 9/24 + 10/24 + 5/24 = 24/24 = 1, wrongly suggesting the probabilities are valid. Judging validity from the fact that each individual fraction lies between 0 and 1 ignores that an exhaustive set must sum to exactly 1, not merely contain valid individual values.
- (d) 3/5 — 'Chosen from the boys' restricts the sample space to the 45 boys, of whom 27 walk. So the probability is 27/45 = 3/5. Using all 80 students as the denominator instead of just the boys gives 27/80, which is the probability that a student chosen from everyone is a boy who walks — not what was asked. Using the 18 boys who do NOT walk (45 − 27) as the numerator instead of the 27 who do gives 18/45 = 2/5. Dividing the 27 walking boys by the number of girls (80 − 45 = 35) instead of by the number of boys gives 27/35.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.