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) 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.'
- (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) 1276 — Method: an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the theoretical probability as the number of trials increases, so use the record resting on the most trials, then multiply by the number of new trials. Working: the three records rest on 50, 200 and 1000 drops, so the most reliable is the one after 1000 drops, namely 0.638, and the run is indeed settling as the trials increase. The expected number of point up landings in 2000 further drops is 2000 × 0.638 = 1276. Answer: about 1276 times. The distractors: 1440 uses the earliest record, which rests on only 50 drops, giving 2000 × 0.720 = 1440; 1330 uses the middle record, treating 200 drops as a safe compromise when 1000 drops is better still, giving 2000 × 0.665 = 1330; 1348 comes from averaging the three records, since 0.720 + 0.665 + 0.638 = 2.023 and 2.023 ÷ 3 = 0.674, then 2000 × 0.674 = 1348, which gives the 50 drop record the same weight as the 1000 drop record.
- (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.
- (c) Red — Theoretical probability is 1/3 ≈ 0.333 for each colour. Red's relative frequency is 38/90 ≈ 0.422, above 1/3, so red is over-represented. Blue's relative frequency is 26/90 ≈ 0.289, below 1/3, so blue is under-represented, not over. Green's relative frequency is also 26/90 ≈ 0.289, below 1/3 for the same reason. Since red's relative frequency clearly exceeds 1/3, it is not true that none of the colours are over-represented.
- (a) 0.368 — Combining both samples, the spinner landed on red 34 + 58 = 92 times out of a total of 85 + 165 = 250 spins, so the best estimate of the probability is 92/250 = 0.368. Writing 0.400 is wrong because it uses only the first sample, 34/85 = 0.400, ignoring the extra 165 spins recorded afterwards. Writing 0.352 is wrong because it uses only the second sample, 58/165 = 0.352 (to 3 decimal places), ignoring the first 85 spins. Writing 0.376 is wrong because it averages the two separate estimates, (0.400 + 0.352) ÷ 2 = 0.376, instead of combining the actual numbers of reds and spins across both samples. The best estimate of the probability that the spinner lands on red, using all 250 spins, is 0.368.
- (a) 50 — To find the number of shots needed for an expected 12 hits, divide the number of hits wanted by the probability of a hit: 12 ÷ 0.24 = 50. Multiplying the number of hits by the probability instead of dividing gives 12 × 0.24 = 2.88, which rounds to 3 shots. Rounding 0.24 to 0.25 before dividing gives 12 ÷ 0.25 = 48. Using the probability of missing, 1 − 0.24 = 0.76, instead of the probability of hitting, gives 12 ÷ 0.76 = 15.79, which rounds to 16.
- (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.
- (c) 3/7 — Method: every counter is equally likely to be taken, so write the number of red counters over the total number of counters in the bag. Working: the bag holds 3 + 2 + 2 = 7 counters, of which 3 are red. Answer: 3/7, a value between 0 and 1 and just below the middle of the scale. The distractors: 4/7 comes from giving the probability that the counter is not red, counting the 2 blue and 2 green instead; 2/7 comes from counting one of the other colours by mistake and giving 2 counters over the total; 3/4 comes from writing the 3 red counters over the 4 counters that are not red instead of over all 7 counters.
- (a) Game B, by £8 — Game A's expected total is 40 × 0.2 × £5 = £40. Game B's expected total is 40 × 0.1 × £12 = £48. Game B is higher, by £48 − £40 = £8. Writing 'Game A, by £8' is wrong because it has the right difference but the wrong game — Game A's total (£40) is actually LOWER than Game B's, not higher. Writing 'Game B, by £48' is wrong because £48 is Game B's whole expected total, not the DIFFERENCE between the two games. Writing 'Game A, by £40' is wrong in the same way, using Game A's whole total as if it were the margin, and naming the wrong game as the winner. Game B gives the higher expected total, by £8.
- (d) 3400 — Combining all three greenhouses gives 200 + 150 + 250 = 600 seeds planted in total, and 172 + 126 + 212 = 510 germinated, so the combined estimate of the germination probability is 510/600 = 0.85. Out of a new batch of 4000 seeds, the expected number to germinate is 4000 × 0.85 = 3400. Writing 3440 is wrong because it uses only Greenhouse 1's rate, 172/200 = 0.86, instead of the combined rate from all three: 4000 × 0.86 = 3440. Writing 3360 is wrong because it uses only Greenhouse 2's rate, 126/150 = 0.84: 4000 × 0.84 = 3360. Writing 510 is wrong because that is the total number that germinated in the ORIGINAL trial, not scaled up to the new batch of 4000 seeds at all. The best estimate is 3400 seeds.
- (c) 0.2 — Let P(green) = x, so P(blue) = 2x. Red, blue, green and yellow are exhaustive: 0.05 + 0.35 + x + 2x = 1, so 0.4 + 3x = 1, giving 3x = 0.6 and x = 0.2. So P(green) = 0.2. Splitting the remaining 0.6 evenly between blue and green, ignoring the 2:1 ratio, gives 0.3. Working out x correctly but then reporting 2x, the probability of blue, gives 0.4. Stopping after finding that blue and green together account for 0.6, without dividing by the three equal shares of x, gives 0.6.
- (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.
- (a) 1/3 — Method: for two independent spinners, multiply the probability of each separate outcome, but first work out each spinner's own probability correctly, using how many of its equal sections actually carry that result. Working: Spinner A has 2 even numbers, 2 and 4, out of 4 sections, so P(even) = 2/4 = 1/2. Spinner B has 2 red sections out of 3, so P(red) = 2/3. Multiplying gives 1/2 × 2/3, which cancels down to 1/3. Answer: 1/3. Watch out: writing down 1/4 treats Spinner B's two colours as equally likely and uses 1/2 for red, when in fact 2 of its 3 sections are red — the sections are not split evenly between the two colours. Writing down 1/6 undercounts Spinner A's even numbers as just one out of four instead of two. And writing down 5/6 applies the 'at least one' formula, P(A) + P(B) − P(A)×P(B), which answers a different question about EITHER spinner landing the right way, not both together.
- (c) 80 — Since 180 calls are 0.75 of all the technical support calls, the technical support total is 180 ÷ 0.75 = 240. The billing calls make up the rest of the 320 calls, so 320 − 240 = 80. Choosing 240 comes from stopping after finding the technical support total and forgetting the question asks for the billing calls, which are the rest. Choosing 185 comes from multiplying 180 × 0.75 = 135 instead of dividing, then working out 320 − 135 = 185. Choosing 140 comes from using 180 directly as the whole technical support total, ignoring the probability altogether, then working out 320 − 180 = 140.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.