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) £0.30 profit for the stall — The stall keeps the £1.50 entry fee whatever happens, and expects to pay out prize × probability of winning = £6 × 0.2 = £1.20 on average. So its expected profit per game is £1.50 − £1.20 = £0.30. Reporting the expected pay-out of £1.20 itself as the profit forgets that the stall also keeps the entry fee. Assuming the player always wins gives an expected cost of £6 − £1.50 = £4.50, treated as a loss for the stall. Using the probability of NOT winning, 0.8, to find the expected pay-out gives £6 × 0.8 = £4.80, and £1.50 − £4.80 = −£3.30, a £3.30 loss.
- (a) 0.54 — The four colours are exhaustive, so all four probabilities sum to 1: the probability of damson is 1 − 0.18 − 0.22 − 0.24 = 0.36. Amber and damson cannot both happen on one spin, so the probability of amber or damson is 0.18 + 0.36 = 0.54. Stopping after finding the probability of damson alone, without adding the probability of amber, gives 0.36. Adding the three given probabilities together, 0.18 + 0.22 + 0.24 = 0.64, and treating that total as the answer never finds the probability of damson at all. Subtracting only the probability of amber from 1, 1 − 0.18 = 0.82, ignores black, cyan and damson completely.
- (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.
- (b) 40% — 32 out of the 80 people chose Coffee, so the percentage is (32 ÷ 80) × 100 = 40%. Choosing 32% comes from treating 32 as if it were already a percentage out of 100, instead of dividing by the actual total of 80 people surveyed. Choosing 25% comes from using the Tea row instead of the Coffee row, (20 ÷ 80) × 100 = 25%. Choosing 20% comes from using the Juice row instead of the Coffee row, (16 ÷ 80) × 100 = 20%.
- (c) 100 — There are 3 even numbers on a fair dice (2, 4 and 6), so the probability of landing on an even number is 3/6 = 1/2, and 300 × 1/2 = 150. The probability of landing on a six is 1/6, so 300 × 1/6 = 50. The dice is expected to land on an even number 150 − 50 = 100 more times than on a six. Writing 50 is wrong because that is just the expected number of sixes on its own, without comparing it to the expected number of evens. Writing 150 is wrong because that is just the expected number of evens on its own, without subtracting the sixes. Writing 200 is wrong because it adds the two expected frequencies together (150 + 50 = 200) instead of finding the difference between them. The dice is expected to land on an even number 100 more times than on a six.
- (a) 4/7 — Method: going away and not going away are the only two possibilities, so the two probabilities form an exhaustive set and add to 1; subtract the given probability from 1. Working: writing 1 as 7/7 gives 7/7 − 3/7, and 7 − 3 = 4 sevenths. Answer: 4/7. The distractors: 3/7 comes from giving back the probability that the family do go away; 1/7 comes from taking the 1 in '1 − 3/7' as a numerator and writing it over the denominator 7; 1/2 comes from assuming that going away and not going away must be equally likely because there are only two possibilities.
- (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) 10 — The probability that the spinner lands on green is its angle out of the whole circle: 60° ÷ 360° = 1/6. Expected number of times on green = 1/6 × 60 = 10. Assuming the three colours are equally likely because there are three sectors, regardless of their different angles, gives 60 ÷ 3 = 20. Using red's angle of 180° instead of green's 60° gives a probability of 1/2, so 60 × 1/2 = 30. Treating green's angle, 60°, as a percentage instead of finding its fraction of 360° gives 60 × 0.60 = 36.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 80 — Method: list the outcomes that count as a success, write the probability from them, then multiply by the number of rolls. Working: the scores of 3 or more are 3, 4, 5 and 6, which is 4 of the 6 equally likely scores, so the probability is 4/6, which cancels to 2/3. Over 120 rolls the expected number is 120 × 2 ÷ 3 = 80. Answer: about 80 of the rolls would be expected to give 3 or more. The distractors: 60 comes from reading a score of 3 or more as a score above 3 and counting only 4, 5 and 6, giving 120 × 3 ÷ 6 = 60; 40 is the expected number of rolls that are not 3 or more, 120 × 2 ÷ 6 = 40; 20 is 120 ÷ 6 and is the expected count for one single score.
- (b) 1/4 — There are 4 × 4 = 16 equally likely ordered outcomes for the two dice. The pairs that total 5 are: first dice 1 with second dice 4; first dice 2 with second dice 3; first dice 3 with second dice 2; and first dice 4 with second dice 1 — which is 4 outcomes, so the probability is 4/16 = 1/4. A candidate who answers 1/8 has listed only 2 of the four pairs, forgetting that first dice 1 with second dice 4 and first dice 4 with second dice 1 are separate outcomes because the dice are different. A candidate who answers 3/16 has found 3 pairs instead of 4, missing one from the list. A candidate who answers 1/16 has counted only a single pair, such as first dice 2 with second dice 3, and treated the order of the dice as not mattering.
- (a) 3/8 — There are 4 × 6 = 24 equally likely outcomes. The outcomes with no 3 at all have Spinner E showing 1, 2 or 4 and Spinner F showing 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6, giving 3 × 5 = 15 outcomes. So the outcomes with at least one 3 are 24 − 15 = 9, and the probability is 9/24 = 3/8. Choosing 5/12 comes from adding the two individual probabilities of a 3, 1/4 + 1/6, which counts the outcome where both spinners show 3 twice over. Choosing 1/4 comes from only counting the case where Spinner E shows 3, and forgetting the outcomes where Spinner F shows 3 instead. Choosing 5/8 comes from working out the probability of getting no 3 at all, 15/24 = 5/8, and giving that as the final answer instead of subtracting it from 1.
- (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.
- (b) £13.50 — The total cost of Nadia's 25 tickets is 25 × £1.50 = £37.50. The expected number of winning tickets is 25 × 0.12 = 3, so the expected prize money is 3 × £8 = £24.00. Nadia's expected loss is the cost minus the expected prize money: £37.50 − £24.00 = £13.50. A candidate who answers £24.00 has given the expected prize money and mistaken it for the loss. A candidate who answers £37.50 has given the total cost of the tickets, forgetting to subtract the expected prize money. A candidate who answers £34.50 has subtracted the expected number of wins, 3, from the cost instead of first converting it to prize money by multiplying by £8.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.