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
- (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) 500 — Method: the expected number of successes is the number of trials multiplied by the probability, so to find the number of trials, divide the expected number by the probability. Working: let n be the number of seeds planted. Then n multiplied by 0.6 must come to 300, so n = 300 ÷ 0.6 = 500. Answer: the grower should plant 500 seeds. The distractors: 180 comes from multiplying instead of dividing, 300 × 0.6 = 180, which answers how many of 300 seeds would germinate; 750 comes from dividing by the probability of not germinating, 300 ÷ 0.4 = 750; 120 comes from multiplying by that same 0.4, 300 × 0.4 = 120.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 0.55 — Method: it is easier to find the probability that Ffion wins NEITHER stage, then subtract that from 1. Working: P(lose stage 1) = 1 − 0.4 = 0.6, and P(lose stage 2) = 1 − 0.25 = 0.75. P(neither) = 0.6 × 0.75 = 0.45. P(at least one) = 1 − 0.45 = 0.55. Answer: 0.55. Watch out: adding the two win probabilities, 0.4 + 0.25 = 0.65, treats winning both as impossible and overcounts — that is not how independent probabilities combine. Multiplying the two win probabilities, 0.4 × 0.25 = 0.1, gives the probability of winning BOTH stages, not at least one. And stopping at 0.45, the probability of winning neither stage, forgets the final step of subtracting from 1.
- (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.
- (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) 36/91 — Method: P(both red | same colour) = P(both red) ÷ P(same colour), where P(same colour) = P(both red) + P(both green). Working: P(both red) = 9/20 × 8/19 = 72/380 = 18/95. P(both green) = 11/20 × 10/19 = 110/380 = 11/38. P(same colour) = 18/95 + 11/38 = 36/190 + 55/190 = 91/190. P(both red | same colour) = (36/190) ÷ (91/190) = 36/91. Answer: 36/91. Watch out: stopping at 18/95 gives P(both red) itself, without dividing by the probability that the colours matched at all. Working out 55/91 finds the same-colour probability for green instead of red — check which colour's count you are putting on top. And 9/20 is just the chance the first ball drawn is red, which ignores the second draw and the without-replacement condition completely.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 12/25 — The group holds 40 of the 250 tickets, so for any one prize the probability the group wins it is 40/250 = 4/25. There are 3 prizes and the group has the same chance at each one, so the expected number won is 3 × 4/25 = 12/25. Writing 4/25 is wrong because it is the chance of winning just ONE prize, without multiplying by the 3 prizes available. Writing 4/75 is wrong because it divides by the 3 prizes instead of multiplying (4/25 ÷ 3 = 4/75), which would mean the group did worse the more prizes were on offer. Writing 64/15625 is wrong because it multiplies the single-prize probability by itself three times, (4/25)³, as though all three prizes had to be won together, instead of adding up the expected number across the three separate prizes. The expected number of prizes won by the group is 12/25.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.