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) 120 — Purple's probability is its angle out of the full circle: 144° ÷ 360° = 2/5. Expected number on purple = 2/5 × 300 = 120. Assuming the three colours are equally likely, ignoring their different angles, gives 300 ÷ 3 = 100. Using orange's angle, 90°, instead of purple's 144° gives a probability of 1/4, so 300 × 1/4 = 75. Treating 144 as a percentage instead of finding its fraction of 360° gives 300 × 0.144 = 43.2, which rounds to 43.
- (a) 1/16 — The two spins are independent, so multiply the probability of blue on each spin: 1/4 × 1/4 = 1/16. Choosing 1/2 comes from adding the two probabilities instead of multiplying, 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2. Choosing 1/8 comes from wrongly treating the second spin as having a 1/2 chance of blue instead of the given 1/4, giving 1/4 × 1/2 = 1/8. Choosing 1/4 comes from giving the probability for a single spin and forgetting that the spinner is spun twice.
- (d) 1/20 — Mia has 25 of the 500 tickets, so the probability she wins is 25/500 = 1/20, dividing the top and the bottom by 25. Writing 19/20 is wrong because that is the probability she does NOT win (1 − 1/20 = 19/20), the opposite of what is asked. Writing 1/25 is wrong because it puts 1 over the number of tickets Mia holds, as though her 25 tickets were the whole raffle — the denominator has to be the 500 tickets sold, not her own share. Writing 1/10 is wrong because it treats the raffle as having only 250 tickets instead of the actual 500: 25/250 = 1/10. The probability that Mia wins is 1/20.
- (c) 6 — Method: to list every combination of one item from a group of 3 and one item from a group of 2 systematically, multiply the two numbers of choices together. Working: 3 × 2 = 6. Answer: 6. Watch out: adding the two totals instead of multiplying, 3 + 2 = 5, misses combinations that a full grid would show — a grid with 3 rows and 2 columns has 6 cells, not 5. Writing down 3 counts only the pens, and writing down 2 counts only the types of paper — neither one pairs every pen with every type of paper.
- (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.
- (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) 10 — There are 5 possible cards and 2 possible coin results, so listing every pair gives 5 × 2 = 10 equally likely outcomes. Choosing 5 comes from listing only the card outcomes and forgetting the coin flip adds a second stage to each one. Choosing 7 comes from adding the two stages instead of combining them, 5 + 2 = 7, rather than pairing every card with every coin result. Choosing 20 comes from counting each coin result twice for every card, 5 × 2 × 2 = 20, effectively pairing every card with the coin twice over.
- (b) 8,100 — First find the total number of alerts sent in the month: 1,500 × 30 = 45,000. Then apply the probability of a 'STOP' reply: 45,000 × 0.18 = 8,100. Stopping after finding only one day's expected replies, 1,500 × 0.18 = 270, forgets to scale up to the whole month. Multiplying the number of days by the probability instead of by the daily total of alerts gives 30 × 0.18 = 5.4, which rounds to 5. Shifting the decimal point in the probability, using 0.018 instead of 0.18, gives 45,000 × 0.018 = 810.
- (c) 0.512 — Method: independent events that must all happen are combined by multiplying their probabilities. Working: the first two questions give 0.8 × 0.8 = 0.64. Bringing in the third gives 0.64 × 0.8, and since 64 × 8 = 512 with three decimal places in the product, this is 0.512. Answer: the probability is 0.512. The distractors: 0.64 comes from multiplying only two of the three probabilities and stopping; 0.8 comes from reading 'independent' as meaning the probability never changes and writing down the single-question figure; 0.0512 comes from a place-value slip in the last multiplication, counting four decimal places instead of three.
- (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.
- (d) 1/15 — Method: a probability read from a frequency tree is the count at the end of the branch you want, divided by the total number in the whole experiment. Working: the branch for walking followed by the branch for being late ends with 6 pupils, and the experiment covers all 90 pupils, so the probability is 6/90. Dividing the top and the bottom by 6 gives 1/15. Answer: the probability is 1/15. The distractors: 3/25 is 6/50 and comes from dividing the 6 by the 50 walkers rather than by the whole group, which answers a different question about walkers only; 8/45 is 16/90 and comes from counting every late pupil, the 6 walkers and the 10 others together, instead of only the late walkers; 1/9 is 10/90 and comes from reading the late count on the branch for pupils who do not walk.
- (a) 17/32 — Because the counter is replaced, each pick is independent with P(red) = 5/8 and P(blue) = 3/8 every time. Both red has probability 5/8 × 5/8 = 25/64, and both blue has probability 3/8 × 3/8 = 9/64. 'Same colour' means either of these, so add them: 25/64 + 9/64 = 34/64 = 17/32. Giving 25/64 finds only the probability of both counters being red, leaving out both counters being blue, which also counts as the same colour. Giving 15/64 finds the probability of one red and one blue counter in just one of the two possible orders — the opposite of what was asked, and only half of it. Giving 13/28 works out the probabilities as if the counter had NOT been replaced, using 5/8 × 4/7 and 3/8 × 2/7, even though the question states it was put back.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.