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.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Probability worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) 5/8 — Winning, near-miss and losing are exhaustive, so the three probabilities sum to 1. Writing 1/4 as 2/8 so every fraction has the same denominator, 1 − 1/8 − 2/8 = 8/8 − 1/8 − 2/8 = 5/8. Subtracting only the winning probability and forgetting the near-miss probability gives 1 − 1/8 = 7/8. Subtracting only the near-miss probability and forgetting the winning probability gives 1 − 1/4 = 3/4. Adding the two given probabilities and stopping there gives 1/8 + 2/8 = 3/8, the probability that a ticket is winning or a near-miss, not the probability that it is losing.
- (a) 5/12 — Method: a win, a draw and a loss are the only outcomes and no two can happen together, so the three probabilities form an exhaustive set of mutually exclusive events and add to 1; add the two given probabilities, then subtract from 1. Working: 1/4 + 1/3 over the common denominator 12 is 3/12 + 4/12 = 7/12, and 1 − 7/12 = 12/12 − 7/12. Answer: 5/12. The distractors: 7/12 comes from stopping at the probability of a win or a draw and never subtracting from 1; 1/12 comes from subtracting the two given probabilities from each other, 1/3 − 1/4, instead of adding them and taking the total from 1; 5/7 comes from adding 1/4 and 1/3 by adding the numerators and the denominators to get 2/7 and then subtracting that from 1.
- (d) 124/125 — The probability that a seed germinates is 1 − 1/5 = 4/5, so the probability that all three seeds fail to germinate is 1/5 × 1/5 × 1/5 = 1/125. The probability that at least one germinates is 1 − 1/125 = 124/125. Choosing 4/5 comes from giving the probability that a single seed germinates, forgetting to combine all three seeds. Choosing 64/125 comes from working out the probability that ALL three seeds germinate, 4/5 × 4/5 × 4/5 = 64/125, instead of at least one. Choosing 12/125 comes from working out the probability that EXACTLY one seed germinates, 3 × 4/5 × 1/5 × 1/5 = 12/125, instead of at least one.
- (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.
- (a) 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households — Method: work out the probability inside the restricted group of garden owners, then work out the probability across the whole survey, and compare the two. Working: 54 of the 120 households with a garden own a dog, so the conditional probability is 54 divided by 120, which is 0.45. Across the whole survey 80 of the 200 households own a dog, which is 0.4. Since 0.45 is not 0.4, having a garden changes the chance of owning a dog and the two events are not independent. Answer: 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households. The distractors: 0.27 is 54/200, dividing the households with both by the whole survey instead of by the 120 with a garden; 0.675 is 54/80, the probability that a household has a garden given that it owns a dog, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round; 0.4 is 80/200, the probability of owning a dog with the garden information never used, which is why that route also reports no difference.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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) 9/25 — Method: P(badminton | tennis) = n(tennis and badminton) ÷ n(tennis) — restrict to the tennis-players, then find what fraction of them also play badminton. Working: n(tennis and badminton) = 18, n(tennis) = 50, so P(badminton | tennis) = 18/50 = 9/25. Answer: 9/25. Watch out: dividing by 40 (the badminton total) finds P(tennis | badminton) instead of P(badminton | tennis) — the wrong direction. Dividing by 90 (all the members named in the question) ignores that you already know the member plays tennis. And dividing by 72 (50 + 40 − 18, the number who play at least one of the two sports) answers a question about the union, not the condition you were given.
- (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.
- (c) 9/16 — Method: two steps. Total the patients who had a flu jab, since the patient picked is known to be one of them, then divide the over 65s who had a jab by that total. Working: 90 patients over 65 and 70 patients aged 65 or under had a jab, so 160 patients had one. The over 65s give 90/160, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 10 gives 9/16. Answer: the probability is 9/16. The distractors: 7/16 is 70/160, the probability that the patient picked is aged 65 or under, which is the other part of the same restricted group; 3/4 is 90/120, the probability that a patient had a jab given that they are over 65, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and needs the 120 patients over 65; 9/40 is 90/400, dividing by every patient on the list instead of by the 160 who had a jab.
- (d) 5/12 — The possible totals are 2 to 12. The prime totals are 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11, with 1, 2, 4, 6 and 2 ways to make them, giving 1 + 2 + 4 + 6 + 2 = 15 outcomes out of 36, so the probability is 15/36 = 5/12. Choosing 7/18 comes from forgetting that a total of 2 counts as prime, giving 14/36 = 7/18 instead. Choosing 19/36 comes from wrongly including a total of 9 as a prime number, adding its 4 ways to the correct 15 to get 19/36. Choosing 13/36 comes from forgetting the 2 ways of making a total of 11, giving 13/36 instead of 15/36.
- (b) 5/12 — There are 36 equally likely ordered pairs. Listing the pairs where the red score is smaller than the blue score gives 15 outcomes, so the probability is 15/36 = 5/12. Choosing 1/2 comes from assuming the 36 outcomes split evenly between 'red smaller' and 'red bigger', which ignores the 6 outcomes where the two dice show the same score. Choosing 7/12 comes from including the outcomes where the two scores are equal, 15 + 6 = 21, giving 21/36 = 7/12, instead of using 'less than' strictly. Choosing 5/36 comes from counting only the outcomes where the two scores differ by exactly 1, such as (1, 2) and (2, 3), which is 5 outcomes, and missing the pairs that differ by more than 1.
- (d) 1/12 — Method: list the full possibility space of sandwich-and-drink pairs, then divide the one matching pair by the size of the whole space. Working: there are 3 × 4 = 12 equally likely sandwich-and-drink pairs, and exactly one of them is egg and water. Answer: 1/12. Watch out: writing down 1/7 comes from adding the two counts, 3 + 4 = 7, instead of multiplying them to build the possibility space. Writing down 1/3 uses only the chance of choosing egg out of 3 sandwiches and ignores the drink altogether. And writing down 1/4 uses only the chance of choosing water out of 4 drinks and ignores the sandwich altogether.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.