Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Probability worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions across the probability statements at Higher tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Calculator
Answer key: Probability worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (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.
- (a) 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households — Method: work out the probability inside the restricted group of garden owners, then work out the probability across the whole survey, and compare the two. Working: 54 of the 120 households with a garden own a dog, so the conditional probability is 54 divided by 120, which is 0.45. Across the whole survey 80 of the 200 households own a dog, which is 0.4. Since 0.45 is not 0.4, having a garden changes the chance of owning a dog and the two events are not independent. Answer: 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households. The distractors: 0.27 is 54/200, dividing the households with both by the whole survey instead of by the 120 with a garden; 0.675 is 54/80, the probability that a household has a garden given that it owns a dog, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round; 0.4 is 80/200, the probability of owning a dog with the garden information never used, which is why that route also reports no difference.
- (d) 136 — 15% of 160 = 0.15 × 160 = 24 patients reported side effects, so 160 − 24 = 136 did not. Stopping after finding the number who reported side effects, 24, answers the wrong question — it is not the number who did NOT report them. Misreading '15%' as a raw count of 15 patients, rather than a percentage, gives 160 − 15 = 145. Subtracting 15% of 160 twice, 160 − 24 − 24 = 112, double-counts the side-effect group.
- (a) £150 — Each game, the expected payout is 0.1 × £20 = £2, so the fête's expected profit per game is the £3 charged minus the £2 expected payout, £1. Over 150 games, that is 150 × £1 = £150. Writing £300 is wrong because 150 × £2 = £300 is the total expected PAYOUT, not the profit — it has not been subtracted from the entry fees. Writing £450 is wrong because 150 × £3 = £450 is the total money taken in entry fees, without accounting for what is expected to be paid out in prizes. Writing £1 is wrong because that is only the expected profit for ONE game — it has not been scaled up to all 150 games. The fête's expected profit is £150.
- (b) 3/10 — The number who use at least one app is 90 − 20 = 70. Since 55 + 42 double-counts the overlap, n(X ∩ Y) = 55 + 42 − 70 = 27, so P(both) = 27/90 = 3/10. Forgetting to subtract the 20 who use neither, and using the full 90 as the union, gives 55 + 42 − 90 = 7, so 7/90. Reporting the probability of using X or Y (or both), 70/90 = 7/9, answers a different question about the union, not the overlap. Reporting the probability of using neither app, 20/90 = 2/9, is the complement of the union, not the intersection.
- (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.
- (b) £100 — Method: find the expected number of wins, turn that into the expected pay out, then compare it with what the games cost. Working: the expected number of wins is 200 × 0.15 = 30. Each win pays £10, so the expected pay out is 30 × 10 = 300 pounds. Playing 200 times at £2 a go costs 200 × 2 = 400 pounds. The expected loss is 400 − 300 = 100 pounds. Answer: Amir should expect to be about £100 down. The distractors: £300 is the expected winnings on their own, with the cost of playing never taken off; £400 is the total cost of playing, with the winnings never taken off; £700 comes from adding the two totals, 400 + 300 = 700, instead of subtracting one from the other.
- (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.
- (b) 4 — With 150 rolls and probability 1/6 for each number, the expected count is 150 ÷ 6 = 25. Comparing each actual count with 25: 1 is 22 (3 below), 2 is 27 (2 above), 3 is 24 (1 below), 4 is 34 (9 above), 5 is 21 (4 below) and 6 is 22 (3 below). Number 4 is furthest above its expected count, so it is the most over-represented. Number 2 is also above its expected count, but by only 2, far less than 4's 9. Number 3's count of 24 is below the expected 25, so it is under-represented, not over. Number 6's count of 22 is also below the expected 25, so it too is under-represented.
- (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.
- (c) 0.37 — Method: pool the two runs into one combined set of results, then find the relative frequency of red across all of the spins together. Working: total reds = 16 + 21 = 37. Total spins = 40 + 60 = 100. Relative frequency = 37 ÷ 100 = 0.37. Answer: 0.37. Watch out: writing down 0.40 uses only the first run, 16 ÷ 40, and throws away the extra evidence from the second 60 spins. Writing down 0.35 uses only the second run, 21 ÷ 60, and throws away the first run instead. And writing down 0.375 averages the two runs' separate rates, (0.40 + 0.35) ÷ 2, which treats a run of 40 spins and a run of 60 spins as equally weighted, when pooling the actual counts gives the larger run its fair share of influence.
- (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) 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) No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6. — The theoretical probability of rolling a 6 on an ordinary dice is fixed at 1/6, worked out from the number of equally likely outcomes, and does not change however the dice is actually rolled. The relative frequency from this trial is 7/30, found from what happened in these particular 30 rolls. Since 7/30 and 1/6 are different numbers, the correct statement is 'No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6.' Assuming the two values must always match because they describe the same event gives 'Yes — relative frequency always equals theory.' Believing that an observed result redefines the theoretical probability gives 'Yes — the theoretical probability has now become 7/30.' Refusing to work out either value at all gives 'Neither can be found — 30 rolls is too few to tell', which ignores that both numbers CAN be calculated from the information given.
- (c) 11/20 — 'Red or white' combines two mutually exclusive events, so add their probabilities: 3/10 = 6/20 and 1/4 = 5/20, giving 6/20 + 5/20 = 11/20. Multiplying the two probabilities instead of adding them, 3/10 × 1/4, gives 3/40, which would be the probability of red and white together, not red or white — and a bead can't be both colours. Subtracting the sum from 1, 1 − 11/20 = 9/20, gives the probability of the bead being black instead of red or white. Converting 1/4 as 4/20 instead of 5/20 (dividing 20 by 4 but forgetting to scale the numerator) gives 6/20 + 4/20 = 1/2.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.