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
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.'
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (b) £100 — Over 250 games, the expected total winnings are 250 × (1/5) × £12 = £600, since a player wins on 1 of the 5 equally likely sections. The total cost of playing is 250 × £2 = £500. The players' expected profit is the winnings minus the cost: £600 − £500 = £100. Writing £500 is wrong because that is only the total cost of playing, without any winnings included. Writing £600 is wrong because that is only the total expected winnings, without subtracting what was paid to play. Writing £2,500 is wrong because it assumes a win on every single game (250 × £12 = £3,000) instead of using the 1-in-5 probability, then subtracts the cost: £3,000 − £500 = £2,500. The players' expected profit over the 250 games is £100.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 1/20 — Method: add the counts on the faulty end branches, divide by the total number of items in the experiment, then cancel. Working: the faulty items number 15 + 5 = 20, and 400 items were checked, so the probability is 20/400. Dividing the top and the bottom by 20 gives 1/20. Answer: the probability is 1/20. The distractors: 3/50 is 15/250 and comes from dividing machine A's faults by machine A's output, which is that machine's own fault rate rather than the probability for the whole batch; 1/30 is 5/150 and does the same on machine B's branch; 19/20 is 380/400 and gives the probability that the item picked is not faulty.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.