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) 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.
- (d) 1/4 — Method: a product is odd only when BOTH factors are odd, so list the ordered pairs where both scores are odd and divide by 36. Working: the odd scores on a dice are 1, 3 and 5, so there are 3 × 3 = 9 ordered pairs where both scores are odd, out of the 36 equally likely pairs, cancelling down to 1/4. Answer: 1/4. Watch out: writing down 3/4 finds the probability that AT LEAST ONE score is odd, 1 minus the probability both are even, which is a different, easier condition to meet than both being odd. Considering only the first dice's score and ignoring the second gives 1/2, since 3 of the first dice's 6 scores are odd — but the product also depends on what the second dice shows. And writing down 1/12 comes from counting only the pairs where the SAME odd number appears twice, (1, 1), (3, 3) and (5, 5), missing pairs like (1, 3) and (5, 1) where the two odd scores differ.
- (c) £3.10 — Aisha's tickets cost 8 × 50p = £4.00. Her expected winnings are (8/400) × £45 = £0.90, since she holds 8 of the 400 tickets. Her expected loss is the cost minus the expected winnings: £4.00 − £0.90 = £3.10. Writing £4.00 is wrong because it is only the cost of her tickets, with no account taken of the expected winnings she might get back. Writing £0.90 is wrong because that is her expected WINNINGS, not her loss — the cost has not been subtracted. Writing £3.89 is wrong because it uses 1 ticket instead of her actual 8 tickets when working out the expected winnings: (1/400) × £45 = £0.1125, giving £4.00 − £0.11 = £3.89. Aisha should expect to lose £3.10.
- (a) Game B, by £8 — Game A's expected total is 40 × 0.2 × £5 = £40. Game B's expected total is 40 × 0.1 × £12 = £48. Game B is higher, by £48 − £40 = £8. Writing 'Game A, by £8' is wrong because it has the right difference but the wrong game — Game A's total (£40) is actually LOWER than Game B's, not higher. Writing 'Game B, by £48' is wrong because £48 is Game B's whole expected total, not the DIFFERENCE between the two games. Writing 'Game A, by £40' is wrong in the same way, using Game A's whole total as if it were the margin, and naming the wrong game as the winner. Game B gives the higher expected total, by £8.
- (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.
- (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) 40 — n(P ∪ Q) = n(P) + n(Q) − n(P ∩ Q) = 34 + 27 − 11 = 50. The complement is everyone outside both sets: n((P ∪ Q)′) = 90 − 50 = 40. Adding P and Q without subtracting the overlap gives 34 + 27 = 61, so 90 − 61 = 29 double-subtracts the 11 who are in both. Reporting n(P ∪ Q) itself, 50, forgets to take the complement at all. Subtracting only n(P) from the universal set, 90 − 34 = 56, ignores set Q altogether.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (b) 8,100 — First find the total number of alerts sent in the month: 1,500 × 30 = 45,000. Then apply the probability of a 'STOP' reply: 45,000 × 0.18 = 8,100. Stopping after finding only one day's expected replies, 1,500 × 0.18 = 270, forgets to scale up to the whole month. Multiplying the number of days by the probability instead of by the daily total of alerts gives 30 × 0.18 = 5.4, which rounds to 5. Shifting the decimal point in the probability, using 0.018 instead of 0.18, gives 45,000 × 0.018 = 810.
- (a) 75% — 'Percentage of the women' restricts the group to the 80 women, of whom 60 attend yoga: 60/80 = 0.75 = 75%. Dividing by the number of men (200 − 80 = 120) instead of the number of women gives 60/120 = 0.5 = 50%. Dividing by all 200 members instead of just the 80 women gives 60/200 = 0.3 = 30%. Using the 20 women who do NOT attend yoga (80 − 60) as the numerator instead of the 60 who do gives 20/80 = 0.25 = 25%.
- (b) 70 — Saloon, estate and hatchback are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of a hatchback is 1 − 0.28 − 0.37 = 0.35. The number of hatchbacks is 0.35 × 200 = 70. Treating the SUM of the other two probabilities, 0.28 + 0.37 = 0.65, as the probability of a hatchback instead of its complement gives 0.65 × 200 = 130. Multiplying the correct probability, 0.35, by 100 instead of the 200 cars actually surveyed gives 35. Averaging the two given probabilities, (0.28 + 0.37) ÷ 2 = 0.325, instead of subtracting them from 1, and then multiplying by 200 gives 65.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.