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) 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.
- (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.
- (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%.
- (a) 70 — Method: two linked steps. Find the expected number of billing calls first, then take the 35% of those, because the 35% is quoted for billing calls only. Working: 40% of 500 is 200 billing calls. 35% of 200 is 70 calls. Answer: you would expect 70 calls. The distractors: 200 stops after the first step and gives the billing calls, forgetting that only some of them are dealt with quickly; 175 is 35% of 500, applying the quick response rate to every call the centre takes rather than to the billing calls only; 375 comes from adding 40% and 35% to get 75% and taking 75% of 500, which treats two stages of one journey as separate outcomes to be added.
- (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.
- (a) 3,860 — The probability a bulb works correctly is the complement of being defective: 1 − 0.035 = 0.965. Expected number working correctly = 0.965 × 4,000 = 3,860. Using the probability of being defective instead of its complement gives 4,000 × 0.035 = 140, the expected number of DEFECTIVE bulbs, not working ones. Shifting the decimal point in the complement, using 0.0965 instead of 0.965, gives 4,000 × 0.0965 = 386. Assuming every bulb works, ignoring the 0.035 probability altogether, gives the full batch of 4,000.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) £124.80 — On the cake branch, 150 − 100 = 50 cakes were bought by children. Adding the 54 biscuits bought by children gives 50 + 54 = 104 items sold to children in total, and at £1.20 each that raises 104 × £1.20 = £124.80. Writing £60.00 is wrong because 50 × £1.20 = £60.00 only counts the cake sales to children and leaves out the 54 biscuits. Writing £163.20 is wrong because it uses the ADULT sales instead of children's: 100 cake adults plus 90 − 54 = 36 biscuit adults gives 136 × £1.20 = £163.20. Writing £136.80 is wrong because it finds the cake children's number by subtracting the wrong branch (150 − 90 = 60 instead of 150 − 100 = 50), giving 60 + 54 = 114 items and 114 × £1.20 = £136.80. The total raised from sales to children is £124.80.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 30 — The numbers less than 4 are 1, 2 and 3, so the probability of that event is 3/6, and the expected count in 90 rolls is 90 × 3/6 = 45. The probability of rolling a 6 is 1/6, and the expected count is 90 × 1/6 = 15. The difference between the two expected counts is 45 − 15 = 30. A candidate who answers 45 has given the expected count for 'less than 4' only, forgetting to subtract the other expected count. A candidate who answers 15 has given the expected count for '6' only. A candidate who answers 36 has used a dice with 5 possible numbers instead of 6, giving 90 × 3/5 = 54 and 90 × 1/5 = 18, a difference of 36.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.