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) £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.
- (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) 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) 39 — Method: put the counts into a two-way table and fill each missing cell by subtracting along a row or down a column. Working: the number of female members is 150 − 80 = 70. The pool column holds 66 members and 35 of them are male, so the number of female pool users is 66 − 35 = 31. Subtracting along the female row, 70 − 31 = 39 female members use the gym. Answer: 39 female members use the gym. The distractors: 45 comes from subtracting along the male row instead, 80 − 35 = 45, which counts male gym users; 31 is the female pool cell, written down one step before the gym cell; 84 is 150 − 66 and counts every gym user, male and female together.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 1276 — Method: an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the theoretical probability as the number of trials increases, so use the record resting on the most trials, then multiply by the number of new trials. Working: the three records rest on 50, 200 and 1000 drops, so the most reliable is the one after 1000 drops, namely 0.638, and the run is indeed settling as the trials increase. The expected number of point up landings in 2000 further drops is 2000 × 0.638 = 1276. Answer: about 1276 times. The distractors: 1440 uses the earliest record, which rests on only 50 drops, giving 2000 × 0.720 = 1440; 1330 uses the middle record, treating 200 drops as a safe compromise when 1000 drops is better still, giving 2000 × 0.665 = 1330; 1348 comes from averaging the three records, since 0.720 + 0.665 + 0.638 = 2.023 and 2.023 ÷ 3 = 0.674, then 2000 × 0.674 = 1348, which gives the 50 drop record the same weight as the 1000 drop record.
- (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%.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 9/28 — Method: two linked steps. Total everyone whose test is positive, since the person picked is known to be one of them, then divide the positive tests that belong to people with the condition by that total. Working: 45 positive tests come from people who have the condition and 95 come from people who do not, so 140 tests are positive. The people with the condition give 45/140, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 5 gives 9/28. Answer: the probability is 9/28. The distractors: 9/10 is 45/50, the probability of a positive test given that the person has the condition, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and is the figure a candidate quotes when the two are confused; 9/200 is 45/1000, dividing by everyone tested rather than by the 140 who tested positive; 1/20 is 50/1000, the probability that a person has the condition before the test result is used at all.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.