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) 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.
- (a) 4/9 — There are 3 × 6 = 18 equally likely outcomes. The product is a multiple of 5 whenever Spinner C shows 5, whatever Spinner D shows, which is 6 outcomes, or whenever Spinner D shows 5 and Spinner C shows 2 or 3, which is 2 more outcomes. This gives 6 + 2 = 8 outcomes, so the probability is 8/18 = 4/9. Choosing 1/3 comes from only counting the 6 outcomes where Spinner C shows 5 and forgetting the 2 outcomes where Spinner D shows 5 instead. Choosing 1/9 comes from only counting the 2 outcomes where Spinner D shows 5 and forgetting the 6 outcomes where Spinner C shows 5. Choosing 1/2 comes from counting 9 outcomes instead of 8, by listing the case where Spinner C shows 5 and Spinner D shows 5 twice over.
- (c) 2 — Set A, the multiples of 3, is {3, 6, 9}. Removing the numbers that are also in set B, the even numbers {2, 4, 6, 8, 10}, leaves {3, 9} — 2 numbers are in A but not B. Giving 3, the whole size of set A, forgets to remove the number 6, which is also even. Giving 7 counts every number in A or B combined, {2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10}, rather than only those in A but not B. Giving 4 counts the numbers in set B but not set A, {2, 4, 8, 10}, the wrong way round.
- (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) 1/10 — Method: list every possible pair of subjects systematically, so that no pair is missed and no pair is counted twice, then compare the number of successful pairs with the size of the list. Working: pairing maths with each of the other four gives 4 pairs, physics with each subject after it gives 3, biology gives 2 and chemistry gives 1, so there are 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10 pairs. Exactly one of them is maths with biology. Answer: the probability is 1/10. The distractors: 1/5 comes from counting maths-then-biology and biology-then-maths as two separate successes while still dividing by the 10 unordered pairs; 1/15 comes from a list that also pairs each subject with itself, giving 15 entries instead of 10; 1/4 comes from working out the second step alone, that 1 of the 4 subjects left after maths is biology, without allowing for the chance that maths is picked at all.
- (a) 1/6 — Method: for equally likely outcomes, write the number of favourable outcomes over the total number of outcomes. Working: the dice has one face showing 6, and there are 6 equally likely faces in total, so the probability is 1 over 6. Answer: 1/6, which is close to the left-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because the outcome is unlikely. The distractors: 5/6 comes from giving the probability of not rolling a 6; 1/2 comes from treating 'a 6' and 'not a 6' as two equally likely outcomes; 1/5 comes from writing the one favourable face over the 5 faces that are not a 6 instead of over all 6 faces.
- (b) 11/12 — Method: raining and not raining are the only two outcomes, so their probabilities add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 12/12 gives 12/12 − 1/12, and only the numerators are subtracted, 12 − 1 = 11. Answer: 11/12, close to the right-hand end of the 0 to 1 scale because rain is unlikely. The distractors: 1/12 comes from giving back the probability that it does rain; 1/11 comes from subtracting the 1 from the denominator instead of subtracting the fraction from 1; 11/11 comes from subtracting 1 from the numerator and from the denominator of 12/12 rather than from the numerator alone.
- (b) Organiser favoured — expected pay-out is under £1 — The expected pay-out per game is the prize times the probability of winning: £4 × 1/5 = £0.80. The expected income per game is the £1 entry fee, which the organiser collects regardless of the result. Since £0.80 is less than £1, the game favours the organiser, because the expected pay-out is under £1. The claim that the game favours the player, because the pay-out is over £1, is wrong on both counts — the pay-out is not over £1, and it is the organiser who benefits. The claim that the organiser is favoured because the pay-out is over £1 reaches the right side but the wrong reason: £0.80 is under £1, not over it. The claim that the two expected amounts are equal is also wrong: £0.80 and £1 are different amounts, so the game is not fair to both sides.
- (d) 12/25 — The group holds 40 of the 250 tickets, so for any one prize the probability the group wins it is 40/250 = 4/25. There are 3 prizes and the group has the same chance at each one, so the expected number won is 3 × 4/25 = 12/25. Writing 4/25 is wrong because it is the chance of winning just ONE prize, without multiplying by the 3 prizes available. Writing 4/75 is wrong because it divides by the 3 prizes instead of multiplying (4/25 ÷ 3 = 4/75), which would mean the group did worse the more prizes were on offer. Writing 64/15625 is wrong because it multiplies the single-prize probability by itself three times, (4/25)³, as though all three prizes had to be won together, instead of adding up the expected number across the three separate prizes. The expected number of prizes won by the group is 12/25.
- (b) 40% — Method: a fraction becomes a percentage by scaling it so that its denominator is 100, or equivalently by dividing the numerator by the denominator and multiplying the decimal by 100. Working: 5 × 20 = 100, so the numerator is scaled by 20 as well, 2 × 20 = 40, giving 40/100; the same figure comes from 2 ÷ 5 = 0.4 and 0.4 × 100 = 40. Answer: 40%. The distractors: 20% comes from dividing 100 by the denominator alone, 100 ÷ 5 = 20, which is the percentage for 1/5 and never uses the numerator 2; 4% comes from finding the decimal 0.4 correctly and then writing the 4 down as the percentage instead of multiplying by 100; 2% comes from scaling only the denominator up to 100 and leaving the numerator as it was, giving 2/100.
- (d) 56 — Method: count the trials over the whole period first, then multiply the number of trials by the probability. Working: 4 weeks is 4 × 7 = 28 days, and at 25 trains a day that is 25 × 28 = 700 trains. The expected number of late trains is 700 × 0.08 = 56. Answer: about 56 late trains over the 4 weeks. The distractors: 2 is the expected number for a single day, 25 × 0.08 = 2, with the 28 days never brought in; 14 uses one week instead of four, 25 × 7 × 0.08 = 14; 644 is 700 − 56 and counts the trains expected to be on time.
- (d) 12 — Method: each result of the first experiment can be paired with every result of the second, so the two counts are combined by multiplying. Working: the coin lands in 2 ways and the dice lands in 6 ways. Each of the 6 dice scores can appear with a head or with a tail, so the table has 6 × 2 rows. Answer: there are 12 different results. The distractors: 8 comes from adding the two counts, 6 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 6 comes from listing the dice scores only and treating the coin as making no difference to the table; 36 comes from working out 6 × 6, counting the coin as though it too had six equally likely results.
- (d) 19/30 — Exactly one means only fiction or only non-fiction, not both: 21 + 17 = 38 out of the 60 readers, which simplifies to 19/30. Including the 14 who read both as well gives 21 + 17 + 14 = 52, so 52/60 = 13/15 — that is at least one, not exactly one. Using only the both-count, 14, as the numerator gives 14/60 = 7/30, the probability of reading both, not exactly one. Using 52, the number who read at least one type, as the denominator instead of the full 60 readers surveyed gives 38/52 = 19/26.
- (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.
- (a) 16 — Method: keep the two rolls in order, first roll then second roll, and count every ordered pair the dice can land on, so a (2, 3) result is counted separately from a (3, 2) result. Working: the first roll can land on any of 4 numbers, and for each of those the second roll can also land on any of 4 numbers, giving 4 × 4 = 16 ordered pairs. Answer: 16. Watch out: writing down 8 comes from adding the two rolls' counts, 4 + 4, instead of multiplying them. Writing down 10 comes from listing unordered pairs, so (2, 3) and (3, 2) are counted as the same entry — that gives the 4 doubles plus 6 mixed pairs, 10 in total, instead of 16 ordered pairs. And writing down 4 comes from counting only one roll's outcomes and never pairing the two rolls together at all.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.