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) 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.
- (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) 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%.
- (a) 0.48 — There are two ways to score exactly one throw: scoring on the first and missing the second, 0.6 × 0.4 = 0.24, or missing the first and scoring the second, 0.4 × 0.6 = 0.24. Adding these gives 0.24 + 0.24 = 0.48. Choosing 0.24 comes from working out only one of the two paths and forgetting the other one also gives exactly one score. Choosing 0.36 comes from working out the probability of scoring BOTH throws, 0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36, instead of exactly one. Choosing 0.84 comes from working out the probability of scoring AT LEAST one throw, 1 − 0.4 × 0.4 = 0.84, instead of exactly one.
- (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) 100 — The sample shows a proportion of 8/60 = 2/15 faulty. Apply that proportion to the new batch of 750: 750 × 2/15 = 100. Flipping the ratio, calculating 8/750 × 60 instead of 8/60 × 750, gives 0.64, which rounds to about 1. Assuming the same number of faulty items applies to the new batch, without scaling for its larger size, just repeats the sample's count of 8. Rounding the proportion 8/60 = 0.1333... down to 0.1 before multiplying gives 750 × 0.1 = 75.
- (b) 0.225 — The relative frequency of rain is the number of rainy days out of all days recorded: 9 ÷ 40 = 0.225, which is noticeably less than the forecaster's claimed 0.3. Using the number of dry days, 40 − 9 = 31, as the denominator instead of the total of 40 gives 9 ÷ 31 = 0.29 (2 d.p.). Simply reporting the forecaster's claimed value, 0.3, without calculating anything from the data at all, ignores the recorded results completely. Misplacing the decimal point, treating 9 out of 40 as 9%, gives 0.09 instead of 0.225.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 9/16 — There are 180 students in total and 84 are in Year 11, so Year 10 has 180 − 84 = 96 students. Of those 96, 42 travel by bus, so 96 − 42 = 54 walk. P(Year 10 student walks) = 54/96 = 9/16. Using the whole school of 180 as the denominator instead of just the 96 Year 10 students gives 54/180 = 3/10. Using the bus count, 42, as if it were the number who walk gives 42/96 = 7/16, the wrong branch of the Year 10 row. Working out the probability for Year 11 instead of Year 10 — 46 walkers out of 84 — gives 46/84 = 23/42.
- (c) Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%. — Converting 11/32 to a decimal gives 11 ÷ 32 = 0.34375, which is greater than 34% (0.34), so Noah has the better save rate: 'Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%.' Comparing the raw numbers 34 and 11 directly, without converting the fraction to the same form, gives 'Elin — 34 is bigger than 11.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning a bigger value, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Noah — 32 is a bigger denominator.' Rounding 34.375% to 34% to the nearest whole percent hides the difference and gives 'Equal — both round to 34% to the nearest percent.'
- (c) Red — Theoretical probability is 1/3 ≈ 0.333 for each colour. Red's relative frequency is 38/90 ≈ 0.422, above 1/3, so red is over-represented. Blue's relative frequency is 26/90 ≈ 0.289, below 1/3, so blue is under-represented, not over. Green's relative frequency is also 26/90 ≈ 0.289, below 1/3 for the same reason. Since red's relative frequency clearly exceeds 1/3, it is not true that none of the colours are over-represented.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.