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) 24/125 — On the fiction branch, 160 − 112 = 48 books were returned late. None of the non-fiction books were late, so the total number of late books is 48, out of 250 books altogether: 48/250 = 24/125. Writing 3/10 is wrong because it divides the 48 late fiction books by the fiction total (160) instead of the whole library total (250). Writing 56/125 is wrong because 112/250 simplifies to 56/125, and 112 is the number of fiction books returned ON TIME, not late. Writing 9/25 is wrong because 90/250 simplifies to 9/25, and 90 is simply the number of non-fiction books, which has nothing to do with late returns. The probability is 24/125.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 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) 1/10 — On the adult branch, 210 − 189 = 21 appointments were missed. There are 300 − 210 = 90 child appointments, and 90 − 81 = 9 of those were missed. In total, 21 + 9 = 30 appointments were missed, out of 300: 30/300 = 1/10. Writing 7/100 is wrong because 21/300 simplifies to 7/100, and 21 only counts the adult branch, leaving out the 9 missed child appointments. Writing 3/100 is wrong because 9/300 simplifies to 3/100, and 9 only counts the child branch, leaving out the 21 missed adult appointments. Writing 1/9 is wrong because it divides the 30 missed appointments by the 270 that were attended (300 − 30) instead of by the whole 300 booked. The probability is 1/10.
- (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.
- (a) £150 — Each game, the expected payout is 0.1 × £20 = £2, so the fête's expected profit per game is the £3 charged minus the £2 expected payout, £1. Over 150 games, that is 150 × £1 = £150. Writing £300 is wrong because 150 × £2 = £300 is the total expected PAYOUT, not the profit — it has not been subtracted from the entry fees. Writing £450 is wrong because 150 × £3 = £450 is the total money taken in entry fees, without accounting for what is expected to be paid out in prizes. Writing £1 is wrong because that is only the expected profit for ONE game — it has not been scaled up to all 150 games. The fête's expected profit is £150.
- (b) 80 — To find the number of attempts needed, divide the target number of successes by the probability of success: 60 ÷ 0.75 = 80. Writing 45 is wrong because 60 × 0.75 = 45 multiplies instead of dividing — that is the number of successes expected from 60 attempts, not the number of attempts needed for 60 successes. Writing 240 is wrong because 60 ÷ 0.25 = 240 uses 0.25, the probability of MISSING, instead of 0.75, the probability of scoring. Writing 90 is wrong because it comes from misremembering 0.75 as 2/3 and dividing by that instead: 60 ÷ (2/3) = 90. She needs to attempt 80 free throws.
- (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.
- (b) 0.0309 — Method: P(both defective | at least one defective) = P(both defective) ÷ P(at least one defective). Find each using independence: P(both) = 0.06², P(at least one) = 1 − P(neither) = 1 − 0.94². Working: P(both) = 0.06² = 0.0036. P(neither) = 0.94² = 0.8836, so P(at least one) = 1 − 0.8836 = 0.1164. P(both | at least one) = 0.0036 ÷ 0.1164 = 0.0309 (3 s.f.). Answer: 0.0309. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.0036 gives P(both defective) itself, not the probability once you already know at least one is defective — you still need to divide by P(at least one defective). Giving 0.0600 answers with the single-component defect rate, ignoring the condition altogether. And 0.5000 assumes that 'at least one' makes the outcomes 'exactly one defective' and 'both defective' equally likely, which is not how these probabilities combine.
- (c) 0.37 — Method: pool the two runs into one combined set of results, then find the relative frequency of red across all of the spins together. Working: total reds = 16 + 21 = 37. Total spins = 40 + 60 = 100. Relative frequency = 37 ÷ 100 = 0.37. Answer: 0.37. Watch out: writing down 0.40 uses only the first run, 16 ÷ 40, and throws away the extra evidence from the second 60 spins. Writing down 0.35 uses only the second run, 21 ÷ 60, and throws away the first run instead. And writing down 0.375 averages the two runs' separate rates, (0.40 + 0.35) ÷ 2, which treats a run of 40 spins and a run of 60 spins as equally weighted, when pooling the actual counts gives the larger run its fair share of influence.
- (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.
- (b) 40 — n(P ∪ Q) = n(P) + n(Q) − n(P ∩ Q) = 34 + 27 − 11 = 50. The complement is everyone outside both sets: n((P ∪ Q)′) = 90 − 50 = 40. Adding P and Q without subtracting the overlap gives 34 + 27 = 61, so 90 − 61 = 29 double-subtracts the 11 who are in both. Reporting n(P ∪ Q) itself, 50, forgets to take the complement at all. Subtracting only n(P) from the universal set, 90 − 34 = 56, ignores set Q altogether.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.