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) 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%.
- (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.
- (c) 30 — The numbers less than 4 are 1, 2 and 3, so the probability of that event is 3/6, and the expected count in 90 rolls is 90 × 3/6 = 45. The probability of rolling a 6 is 1/6, and the expected count is 90 × 1/6 = 15. The difference between the two expected counts is 45 − 15 = 30. A candidate who answers 45 has given the expected count for 'less than 4' only, forgetting to subtract the other expected count. A candidate who answers 15 has given the expected count for '6' only. A candidate who answers 36 has used a dice with 5 possible numbers instead of 6, giving 90 × 3/5 = 54 and 90 × 1/5 = 18, a difference of 36.
- (a) 20 — Dice A is fair, so its expected number of sixes is 150 × 1/6 = 25. Dice B has P(6) = 0.3, so its expected number of sixes is 150 × 0.3 = 45. The difference is 45 − 25 = 20. Adding the two expected values instead of subtracting them gives 25 + 45 = 70. Reporting Dice B's expected sixes on their own, without comparing to Dice A, gives 45. Using the fair probability 1/6 for Dice B as well as Dice A ignores the bias altogether, giving 150 × 1/6 = 25 for both dice and a difference of 0.
- (c) 9/16 — Method: two steps. Total the patients who had a flu jab, since the patient picked is known to be one of them, then divide the over 65s who had a jab by that total. Working: 90 patients over 65 and 70 patients aged 65 or under had a jab, so 160 patients had one. The over 65s give 90/160, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 10 gives 9/16. Answer: the probability is 9/16. The distractors: 7/16 is 70/160, the probability that the patient picked is aged 65 or under, which is the other part of the same restricted group; 3/4 is 90/120, the probability that a patient had a jab given that they are over 65, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and needs the 120 patients over 65; 9/40 is 90/400, dividing by every patient on the list instead of by the 160 who had a jab.
- (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) 1/10 — On the adult branch, 210 − 189 = 21 appointments were missed. There are 300 − 210 = 90 child appointments, and 90 − 81 = 9 of those were missed. In total, 21 + 9 = 30 appointments were missed, out of 300: 30/300 = 1/10. Writing 7/100 is wrong because 21/300 simplifies to 7/100, and 21 only counts the adult branch, leaving out the 9 missed child appointments. Writing 3/100 is wrong because 9/300 simplifies to 3/100, and 9 only counts the child branch, leaving out the 21 missed adult appointments. Writing 1/9 is wrong because it divides the 30 missed appointments by the 270 that were attended (300 − 30) instead of by the whole 300 booked. The probability is 1/10.
- (a) 1200 — Method: take the estimate from the larger sample, because an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the true probability as the sample grows, then multiply by the number of bulbs made in a week. Working: Inspector B tested 500 bulbs, far more than Inspector A's 40, so use B's relative frequency: 30 ÷ 500 = 0.06. A week's production is 4000 × 5 = 20000 bulbs. The expected number of faulty bulbs is 20000 × 0.06 = 1200. Answer: about 1200 faulty bulbs a week. The distractors: 2000 uses Inspector A's estimate, 4 ÷ 40 = 0.1, giving 20000 × 0.1 = 2000, and so rests on a sample of only 40 bulbs; 1600 comes from averaging the two estimates of 0.1 and 0.06 to get 0.08, and 20000 × 0.08 = 1600, which gives the small sample equal weight with the large one; 240 uses the right estimate but stops at a single day, 4000 × 0.06 = 240.
- (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.
- (c) 102 — Method: turn the past record into a relative frequency, then use it as an estimate of the probability of rain and multiply by the number of days being predicted for. Working: relative frequency of rain = 70 ÷ 250 = 0.28. Expected rainy days in 365 days = 365 × 0.28 = 102.2, which rounds to about 102 days. Answer: about 102 days. Watch out: writing down 48 swaps which number is the sample and which is the target, working out 70 ÷ 365 × 250 instead of 70 ÷ 250 × 365. Writing down 70 just repeats the original count of rainy days without scaling it up to the new, longer period at all. And writing down 110 comes from rounding the relative frequency to 0.3 before multiplying, 365 × 0.3 = 109.5, when 70 ÷ 250 is exactly 0.28 and needs no rounding at all.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 3400 — Combining all three greenhouses gives 200 + 150 + 250 = 600 seeds planted in total, and 172 + 126 + 212 = 510 germinated, so the combined estimate of the germination probability is 510/600 = 0.85. Out of a new batch of 4000 seeds, the expected number to germinate is 4000 × 0.85 = 3400. Writing 3440 is wrong because it uses only Greenhouse 1's rate, 172/200 = 0.86, instead of the combined rate from all three: 4000 × 0.86 = 3440. Writing 3360 is wrong because it uses only Greenhouse 2's rate, 126/150 = 0.84: 4000 × 0.84 = 3360. Writing 510 is wrong because that is the total number that germinated in the ORIGINAL trial, not scaled up to the new batch of 4000 seeds at all. The best estimate is 3400 seeds.
- (b) 0.0309 — Method: P(both defective | at least one defective) = P(both defective) ÷ P(at least one defective). Find each using independence: P(both) = 0.06², P(at least one) = 1 − P(neither) = 1 − 0.94². Working: P(both) = 0.06² = 0.0036. P(neither) = 0.94² = 0.8836, so P(at least one) = 1 − 0.8836 = 0.1164. P(both | at least one) = 0.0036 ÷ 0.1164 = 0.0309 (3 s.f.). Answer: 0.0309. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.0036 gives P(both defective) itself, not the probability once you already know at least one is defective — you still need to divide by P(at least one defective). Giving 0.0600 answers with the single-component defect rate, ignoring the condition altogether. And 0.5000 assumes that 'at least one' makes the outcomes 'exactly one defective' and 'both defective' equally likely, which is not how these probabilities combine.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.