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) 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.
- (d) 1/12 — Method: list the full possibility space of sandwich-and-drink pairs, then divide the one matching pair by the size of the whole space. Working: there are 3 × 4 = 12 equally likely sandwich-and-drink pairs, and exactly one of them is egg and water. Answer: 1/12. Watch out: writing down 1/7 comes from adding the two counts, 3 + 4 = 7, instead of multiplying them to build the possibility space. Writing down 1/3 uses only the chance of choosing egg out of 3 sandwiches and ignores the drink altogether. And writing down 1/4 uses only the chance of choosing water out of 4 drinks and ignores the sandwich altogether.
- (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) 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) £0.30 profit for the stall — The stall keeps the £1.50 entry fee whatever happens, and expects to pay out prize × probability of winning = £6 × 0.2 = £1.20 on average. So its expected profit per game is £1.50 − £1.20 = £0.30. Reporting the expected pay-out of £1.20 itself as the profit forgets that the stall also keeps the entry fee. Assuming the player always wins gives an expected cost of £6 − £1.50 = £4.50, treated as a loss for the stall. Using the probability of NOT winning, 0.8, to find the expected pay-out gives £6 × 0.8 = £4.80, and £1.50 − £4.80 = −£3.30, a £3.30 loss.
- (c) 80 — Since 180 calls are 0.75 of all the technical support calls, the technical support total is 180 ÷ 0.75 = 240. The billing calls make up the rest of the 320 calls, so 320 − 240 = 80. Choosing 240 comes from stopping after finding the technical support total and forgetting the question asks for the billing calls, which are the rest. Choosing 185 comes from multiplying 180 × 0.75 = 135 instead of dividing, then working out 320 − 135 = 185. Choosing 140 comes from using 180 directly as the whole technical support total, ignoring the probability altogether, then working out 320 − 180 = 140.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 56 — Method: count the trials over the whole period first, then multiply the number of trials by the probability. Working: 4 weeks is 4 × 7 = 28 days, and at 25 trains a day that is 25 × 28 = 700 trains. The expected number of late trains is 700 × 0.08 = 56. Answer: about 56 late trains over the 4 weeks. The distractors: 2 is the expected number for a single day, 25 × 0.08 = 2, with the 28 days never brought in; 14 uses one week instead of four, 25 × 7 × 0.08 = 14; 644 is 700 − 56 and counts the trains expected to be on time.
- (c) 15/23 — Method: find P(rough and delayed) and the overall P(delayed) using the tree, then divide. Working: P(rough and delayed) = 0.2 × 0.75 = 0.15. P(calm and delayed) = 0.8 × 0.1 = 0.08. P(delayed) = 0.15 + 0.08 = 0.23. P(rough | delayed) = 0.15 ÷ 0.23 = 15/23. Answer: 15/23. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.15 (3/20) gives P(rough and delayed) itself, without dividing by the overall probability that a crossing is delayed. Giving 0.75 (3/4) is the probability you were told to start with — that a crossing is delayed GIVEN the sea is rough — which is the reverse of what's being asked. And 0.2 (1/5) is just the original probability that the sea is rough, before you take the fact that the crossing was delayed into account.
- (a) 43/70 — There are 140 − 85 = 55 Zone B households, and 55 − 21 = 34 of them recycle glass. In total, 52 + 34 = 86 households recycle glass, out of 140: 86/140 = 43/70. Writing 13/35 is wrong because 52/140 simplifies to 13/35, and 52 only counts Zone A, leaving out the 34 Zone B recyclers. Writing 17/70 is wrong because 34/140 simplifies to 17/70, and 34 only counts Zone B, leaving out the 52 Zone A recyclers. Writing 73/140 is wrong because it adds the 52 Zone A recyclers to the 21 Zone B households that do NOT recycle, mixing up two different groups instead of adding the two recycling groups. The probability is 43/70.
- (b) £13.50 — The total cost of Nadia's 25 tickets is 25 × £1.50 = £37.50. The expected number of winning tickets is 25 × 0.12 = 3, so the expected prize money is 3 × £8 = £24.00. Nadia's expected loss is the cost minus the expected prize money: £37.50 − £24.00 = £13.50. A candidate who answers £24.00 has given the expected prize money and mistaken it for the loss. A candidate who answers £37.50 has given the total cost of the tickets, forgetting to subtract the expected prize money. A candidate who answers £34.50 has subtracted the expected number of wins, 3, from the cost instead of first converting it to prize money by multiplying by £8.
- (b) Organiser favoured — expected pay-out is under £1 — The expected pay-out per game is the prize times the probability of winning: £4 × 1/5 = £0.80. The expected income per game is the £1 entry fee, which the organiser collects regardless of the result. Since £0.80 is less than £1, the game favours the organiser, because the expected pay-out is under £1. The claim that the game favours the player, because the pay-out is over £1, is wrong on both counts — the pay-out is not over £1, and it is the organiser who benefits. The claim that the organiser is favoured because the pay-out is over £1 reaches the right side but the wrong reason: £0.80 is under £1, not over it. The claim that the two expected amounts are equal is also wrong: £0.80 and £1 are different amounts, so the game is not fair to both sides.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.