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) 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.
- (c) 45 — Three of the ten numbers (8, 9 and 10) are greater than 7, so the probability is 3/10, and 150 × 3/10 = 45. Writing 105 is wrong because 150 × 7/10 = 105 uses the seven numbers that are NOT greater than 7 (1 to 7), the opposite of what is asked. Writing 60 is wrong because it counts 7, 8, 9 and 10 as four numbers greater than 7, wrongly including 7 itself: 150 × 4/10 = 60. Writing 50 is wrong because 150 ÷ 3 = 50 divides by the count of favourable numbers instead of multiplying by the correct fraction of the spinner. The expected number of spins landing on a number greater than 7 is 45.
- (d) 75% — Method: count how many cards are not hearts, write that count over the total number of cards, cancel the fraction down and then turn it into a percentage. Working: 52 − 13 = 39 cards are not hearts, so the probability is 39/52; dividing the numerator and the denominator by 13 gives 3/4, and 3/4 = 0.75, so 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%, three quarters of the way along the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: 25% comes from giving the probability that the card is a heart, 13 out of 52, which cancels to 1/4; 50% comes from reading 'not a heart' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 39% comes from writing the count of 39 cards straight down as the percentage without comparing it with the 52 cards in the pack.
- (b) 57/100 — Pooling both trials: total heads = 24 + 33 = 57, total flips = 40 + 60 = 100, so the combined relative frequency is 57/100, which is already in its simplest form since 57 and 100 share no common factor. Averaging the two separate relative frequencies instead, (24/40 + 33/60) ÷ 2 = (0.6 + 0.55) ÷ 2 = 0.575 = 23/40, treats the two trials as equally weighted even though Ben made more flips, which is not correct. Using only Leah's data gives 24/40 = 3/5. Using only Ben's data gives 33/60 = 11/20.
- (c) 2/15 — Method: for independent events, the probability that both happen is the product of the two probabilities. Working: the calculation is 2/5 × 1/3. Multiplying fractions gives 2 × 1 = 2 on the top and 5 × 3 = 15 on the bottom. Answer: the probability is 2/15. The distractors: 11/15 comes from adding the two probabilities, 6/15 + 5/15, instead of multiplying them; 3/8 comes from adding the numerators and the denominators separately; 1/15 comes from subtracting one probability from the other, 6/15 − 5/15.
- (b) 37/75 — There are 150 − 84 = 66 men. 84 − 50 = 34 women prefer weight training, and 40 men prefer weight training, so 34 + 40 = 74 people in total prefer weight training, out of 150: 74/150 = 37/75. Writing 4/15 is wrong because it only counts the men who prefer weight training (40/150, simplified), leaving out the 34 women. Writing 17/75 is wrong because it only counts the women who prefer weight training (34/150, simplified), leaving out the 40 men. Writing 37/42 is wrong because it uses the number of women (84) as the denominator instead of the whole gym (150) — 74/84 simplifies to 37/42, but that is not a probability out of the whole group. The probability is 37/75.
- (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) 952 — 68% = 0.68. The relative frequency from the survey applies to the new group of 1400 shoppers, so the expected number is 0.68 × 1400 = 952. Working out 1 − 0.68 = 0.32 and applying that instead, 0.32 × 1400 = 448, finds the number who have NOT used a self-checkout, not the number who have. Applying 68% to the original sample size of 250 instead of the new total of 1400 gives 0.68 × 250 = 170. Applying the complement percentage to the original sample size, 0.32 × 250 = 80, compounds both mistakes.
- (b) likely — On the probability scale, 'certain' is reserved for a probability of exactly 1, and 'evens' describes a probability of exactly 0.5. A probability of 0.9 is high but not equal to 1, so the correct word is 'likely'. Choosing 'certain' treats a probability close to 1 as if it were exactly 1, which it is not. Choosing 'evens' misjudges 0.9 as being close to the midpoint of the scale, when it is close to the 'certain' end instead. Choosing 'unlikely' reads the scale the wrong way round, as if a high probability meant a low chance of happening.
- (b) 80 — To find the number of attempts needed, divide the target number of successes by the probability of success: 60 ÷ 0.75 = 80. Writing 45 is wrong because 60 × 0.75 = 45 multiplies instead of dividing — that is the number of successes expected from 60 attempts, not the number of attempts needed for 60 successes. Writing 240 is wrong because 60 ÷ 0.25 = 240 uses 0.25, the probability of MISSING, instead of 0.75, the probability of scoring. Writing 90 is wrong because it comes from misremembering 0.75 as 2/3 and dividing by that instead: 60 ÷ (2/3) = 90. She needs to attempt 80 free throws.
- (d) 9 — Method: each of the first spin's 3 outcomes can be paired with each of the second spin's 3 outcomes, so the two counts are multiplied together. Working: 3 × 3 = 9 ordered pairs. Answer: 9. Watch out: writing down 6 comes either from adding the two spins' counts, 3 + 3, instead of multiplying them, or from listing colour pairs without order, treating (red, blue) as the same entry as (blue, red) — both shortcuts miss outcomes that the ordered list contains. Writing down 3 lists only a single spin's outcomes and never pairs the two spins up at all. And writing down 27 treats the spinner as though it had been spun three times, 3 × 3 × 3, one spin too many.
- (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.
- (c) 0.6 — Method: no two of these ways of travelling can happen on the same day, so they are mutually exclusive and the probability that one of them happens is the sum of their probabilities; they need not add to 1, because travelling by car is a fourth way. Working: 0.2 + 0.3 = 0.5, and 0.5 + 0.1 = 0.6, the decimal points lined up at each step. Answer: 0.6, which also shows that the probability of being taken by car is 0.4, since all four ways together must make 1. The distractors: 0.4 comes from carrying on past the question and giving the probability of the remaining way, by car; 0.5 comes from adding only the bus and the bike and leaving the smallest of the three probabilities out of the total; 0.006 comes from multiplying the three probabilities together instead of adding them.
- (b) 41/160 — In total, 27 + 14 = 41 of the 160 employees cycle to work, so the probability is 41/160 (41 and 160 share no common factor, so this is already in its simplest form). Writing 27/160 is wrong because it only counts the full-time cyclists and leaves out the 14 part-time cyclists. Writing 41/90 is wrong because it uses the full-time total (90) as the denominator instead of the whole survey (160). Writing 1/5 is wrong because it only uses the part-time branch, simplifying 14/70 to 1/5 and ignoring the full-time cyclists completely. The probability is 41/160.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.