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
- (c) 100 — There are 3 even numbers on a fair dice (2, 4 and 6), so the probability of landing on an even number is 3/6 = 1/2, and 300 × 1/2 = 150. The probability of landing on a six is 1/6, so 300 × 1/6 = 50. The dice is expected to land on an even number 150 − 50 = 100 more times than on a six. Writing 50 is wrong because that is just the expected number of sixes on its own, without comparing it to the expected number of evens. Writing 150 is wrong because that is just the expected number of evens on its own, without subtracting the sixes. Writing 200 is wrong because it adds the two expected frequencies together (150 + 50 = 200) instead of finding the difference between them. The dice is expected to land on an even number 100 more times than on a six.
- (b) £100 — Method: find the expected number of wins, turn that into the expected pay out, then compare it with what the games cost. Working: the expected number of wins is 200 × 0.15 = 30. Each win pays £10, so the expected pay out is 30 × 10 = 300 pounds. Playing 200 times at £2 a go costs 200 × 2 = 400 pounds. The expected loss is 400 − 300 = 100 pounds. Answer: Amir should expect to be about £100 down. The distractors: £300 is the expected winnings on their own, with the cost of playing never taken off; £400 is the total cost of playing, with the winnings never taken off; £700 comes from adding the two totals, 400 + 300 = 700, instead of subtracting one from the other.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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%.
- (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) 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) 4 — With 150 rolls and probability 1/6 for each number, the expected count is 150 ÷ 6 = 25. Comparing each actual count with 25: 1 is 22 (3 below), 2 is 27 (2 above), 3 is 24 (1 below), 4 is 34 (9 above), 5 is 21 (4 below) and 6 is 22 (3 below). Number 4 is furthest above its expected count, so it is the most over-represented. Number 2 is also above its expected count, but by only 2, far less than 4's 9. Number 3's count of 24 is below the expected 25, so it is under-represented, not over. Number 6's count of 22 is also below the expected 25, so it too is under-represented.
- (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.'
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 38% — Method: the two swimming percentages are quoted inside different age groups, so weight each one by the size of its group and add the two results. Working: the under 18s are 45% of the members and 60% of them swim, giving 0.45 × 60 = 27% of all the members. The members aged 18 or over are 55% of the members and 20% of them swim, giving 0.55 × 20 = 11% of all the members. Adding these gives 38%. Answer: 38% of the members swim each week. The distractors: 80% comes from adding 60% and 20% straight off, treating two rates quoted inside different groups as though they could be added; 40% is the mean of 60% and 20%, which would be right only if the two age groups were the same size, and they are not; 42% comes from pairing each swimming rate with the wrong age group, working out 0.45 × 20 added to 0.55 × 60.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.