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) 11/36 — Method: 'at least one' is the opposite of 'none at all', so work out the probability of no 5 on either roll and take it away from 1. Working: a roll that is not a 5 has probability 5/6, and the rolls are independent, so no 5 at all has probability 5/6 × 5/6 = 25/36. Taking this from 36/36 leaves 11/36. Answer: the probability is 11/36. The distractors: 25/36 is the probability of no 5 at all, written down without the final subtraction; 12/36 comes from counting the 6 pairs with a 5 on the first roll and the 6 pairs with a 5 on the second and adding them, which counts the pair (5, 5) twice; 30/36 comes from working out 1 − 1/6 as though only one roll were made.
- (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.
- (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) 50% — The total number of customers who bought a cake is 54 + 21 = 75, combining both hot-drink and non-hot-drink customers. As a percentage of all 150 customers, this is (75 ÷ 150) × 100 = 50%. Choosing 36% comes from only counting the hot-drink customers who bought a cake, (54 ÷ 150) × 100 = 36%, and forgetting the 21 non-hot-drink customers who also bought a cake. Choosing 14% comes from only counting the non-hot-drink customers who bought a cake, (21 ÷ 150) × 100 = 14%, and forgetting the 54 hot-drink customers who also bought a cake. Choosing 60% comes from dividing by the hot-drink total of 90 instead of the grand total of 150, (54 ÷ 90) × 100 = 60%.
- (b) 500 — Method: when a dice is known to be fair, the theoretical probability is the best thing to work from, and the more trials there are the closer the results tend to it. Working: for a fair dice the probability of a six is 1/6, so the expected number of sixes in 3000 rolls is 3000 × 1 ÷ 6 = 500. The class experiment gave a relative frequency of 14/60, but 60 trials is far too few to overturn a known theoretical value, and the school's 3000 rolls will tend towards 1/6 in any case. Answer: about 500 sixes. The distractors: 700 comes from using the class relative frequency instead of the theory, 3000 × 14 ÷ 60 = 700; 600 comes from splitting the difference between the two, since 1/6 is about 0.167 and 14/60 is about 0.233, whose mean is 0.2, and 3000 × 0.2 = 600; 2500 uses 5/6 instead of 1/6 and counts the rolls expected not to be a six.
- (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) 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) 195 — The relative frequency from the trial is 52 ÷ 80 = 0.65, and the expected number of point-up landings in 300 drops is 0.65 × 300 = 195. Giving 52 as the answer reuses the original count from the 80-drop trial without scaling it up to 300 drops at all. Misreading 52 out of 80 as 52% and finding 52% of 300 gives 156. Finding the expected number of point-DOWN landings instead of point-up, using the relative frequency 28 ÷ 80 = 0.35, gives 0.35 × 300 = 105.
- (a) 0.30 — Red, blue, green and yellow are exhaustive, so all four probabilities sum to 1: 0.24 + 0.16 + x + x = 1, so 2x + 0.40 = 1, giving 2x = 0.60 and x = 0.30. Stopping at 2x = 0.60 without dividing by 2 leaves 0.60, the combined probability of both blue and green together, not the value of x on its own. Sharing the 0.60 across all four colours instead of just the two unknown ones gives 0.60 ÷ 4 = 0.15. Leaving out the 0.16 for yellow gives 2x + 0.24 = 1, so 2x = 0.76 and x = 0.38.
- (c) 39.5% — Win, draw and lose are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 100%: 42% + 18.5% = 60.5% is the percentage that wins or draws. 100% − 60.5% = 39.5% is the percentage that neither wins nor draws. Adding 42% and 18.5% and stopping there, 60.5%, is the probability of winning or drawing, not of neither. Subtracting only the 42% from 100% gives 58.0%, ignoring the draw percentage. Subtracting only the 18.5% from 100% gives 81.5%, ignoring the win percentage.
- (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.
- (b) 24/125 — On the fiction branch, 160 − 112 = 48 books were returned late. None of the non-fiction books were late, so the total number of late books is 48, out of 250 books altogether: 48/250 = 24/125. Writing 3/10 is wrong because it divides the 48 late fiction books by the fiction total (160) instead of the whole library total (250). Writing 56/125 is wrong because 112/250 simplifies to 56/125, and 112 is the number of fiction books returned ON TIME, not late. Writing 9/25 is wrong because 90/250 simplifies to 9/25, and 90 is simply the number of non-fiction books, which has nothing to do with late returns. The probability is 24/125.
- (a) £124.80 — On the cake branch, 150 − 100 = 50 cakes were bought by children. Adding the 54 biscuits bought by children gives 50 + 54 = 104 items sold to children in total, and at £1.20 each that raises 104 × £1.20 = £124.80. Writing £60.00 is wrong because 50 × £1.20 = £60.00 only counts the cake sales to children and leaves out the 54 biscuits. Writing £163.20 is wrong because it uses the ADULT sales instead of children's: 100 cake adults plus 90 − 54 = 36 biscuit adults gives 136 × £1.20 = £163.20. Writing £136.80 is wrong because it finds the cake children's number by subtracting the wrong branch (150 − 90 = 60 instead of 150 − 100 = 50), giving 60 + 54 = 114 items and 114 × £1.20 = £136.80. The total raised from sales to children is £124.80.
- (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.
- (d) 3/20 — The probability of taking a red ball from Bag A is 3/5, and the probability of taking a red ball from Bag B is 1/4. Since the two picks are independent, the probabilities are multiplied: 3/5 × 1/4 = 3/20. A candidate who answers 4/9 has added the numerators and added the denominators, (3+1)/(5+4), instead of multiplying the two fractions. A candidate who answers 17/20 has added the two fractions, 3/5 + 1/4, instead of multiplying them. A candidate who answers 3/25 has misread Bag B as also containing 5 balls, using 1/5 instead of 1/4.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.