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
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 753 — The estimate from 2000 spins is the most reliable, since it comes from the largest sample size, so the best estimate of the probability is 0.251. Over a further 3000 spins, the expected number landing on green is 3000 × 0.251 = 753. Writing 1050 is wrong because 3000 × 0.350 = 1050 uses the estimate from only 20 spins, the LEAST reliable of the three. Writing 870 is wrong because 3000 × 0.290 = 870 uses the estimate from 200 spins rather than the more reliable 2000-spin estimate. Writing 750 is wrong because 3000 × 0.25 = 750 ignores the recorded data completely and simply assumes each of the 4 colours is equally likely. The best estimate is 753 expected green spins.
- (c) 325 — Method: first find the relative frequency of NOT landing on red from the 200 spins, then scale that up to 500 spins. Working: non-red results = 50 + 80 = 130, out of 200 spins, so P(not red) = 130 ÷ 200 = 0.65. Expected non-red results in 500 spins = 500 × 0.65 = 325. Answer: 325. Watch out: writing down 175 finds the expected number of RED results instead, 70 ÷ 200 × 500 = 175, answering the opposite of what was asked. Writing down 250 assumes landing red or not landing red must be a fair 50-50 split, but the spinner is biased and the actual results do not split evenly. And writing down 130 stops after finding how many of the 200 spins were non-red and forgets to scale that figure up to the 500 spins asked for.
- (a) 1276 — Method: an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the theoretical probability as the number of trials increases, so use the record resting on the most trials, then multiply by the number of new trials. Working: the three records rest on 50, 200 and 1000 drops, so the most reliable is the one after 1000 drops, namely 0.638, and the run is indeed settling as the trials increase. The expected number of point up landings in 2000 further drops is 2000 × 0.638 = 1276. Answer: about 1276 times. The distractors: 1440 uses the earliest record, which rests on only 50 drops, giving 2000 × 0.720 = 1440; 1330 uses the middle record, treating 200 drops as a safe compromise when 1000 drops is better still, giving 2000 × 0.665 = 1330; 1348 comes from averaging the three records, since 0.720 + 0.665 + 0.638 = 2.023 and 2.023 ÷ 3 = 0.674, then 2000 × 0.674 = 1348, which gives the 50 drop record the same weight as the 1000 drop record.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 22.8% — Relative frequency as a percentage is the faulty count divided by the total, then multiplied by 100: 33 ÷ 145 × 100 = 22.76, which rounds to 22.8%. Giving 33.0% as the answer uses the frequency, 33, directly as a percentage without dividing by the total 145 at all. Rounding 22.76 down to 22.7% instead of up applies the wrong rounding direction at the first decimal place. Finding the relative frequency of the bulbs that were NOT faulty first: 145 − 33 = 112, and 112 ÷ 145 × 100 = 77.24, answers the opposite question and rounds to 77.2%.
- (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) 3,860 — The probability a bulb works correctly is the complement of being defective: 1 − 0.035 = 0.965. Expected number working correctly = 0.965 × 4,000 = 3,860. Using the probability of being defective instead of its complement gives 4,000 × 0.035 = 140, the expected number of DEFECTIVE bulbs, not working ones. Shifting the decimal point in the complement, using 0.0965 instead of 0.965, gives 4,000 × 0.0965 = 386. Assuming every bulb works, ignoring the 0.035 probability altogether, gives the full batch of 4,000.
- (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.
- (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) 0.80 — Evens is exactly halfway along the scale, at 0.5, and 3/10 written as a decimal is 0.3. A probability 3/10 higher than evens is 0.5 + 0.3 = 0.80. Giving 0.30 as the answer converts the increase but never adds it to the value of evens. Adding the increase to 1, the 'certain' end of the scale, instead of to evens gives 1 + 0.3 = 1.30, which cannot be a probability. Writing 3/10 as 0.03 instead of 0.3, a place-value slip, gives 0.5 + 0.03 = 0.53.
- (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.
- (d) 3/16 — Method: work out each draw's own probability first, then multiply them together since the two draws are independent. Working: there are 8 tickets in all, 3 of them blue, so P(blue) = 3/8. P(spinner number greater than 2) = 2/4 = 1/2, since 3 and 4 qualify. Multiplying gives 3/8 × 1/2, which comes to 3/16. Answer: 3/16. Watch out: writing down 3/8 stops after the first draw and never brings in the spinner at all. Writing down 1/2 does the opposite, using only the spinner and ignoring the ticket draw. And writing down 5/16 uses 5/8, the probability of a RED ticket, instead of 3/8 for blue — reading the wrong colour off the raffle.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.