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
- (d) 1/8 — The multiples of 3 from 1 to 8 are 3 and 6, so the probability of that event is 2/8, which simplifies to 1/4. The probability of the coin landing on heads is 1/2. Since the spin and the toss are independent, multiply the two probabilities: 1/4 × 1/2 = 1/8. A candidate who answers 1/4 has considered only the spinner and forgotten to combine it with the coin toss. A candidate who answers 1/2 has considered only the coin and forgotten the spinner condition entirely. A candidate who answers 1/16 has counted only one number, 6, as a multiple of 3 instead of two, giving 1/8 × 1/2.
- (d) 3/20 — The probability of taking a red ball from Bag A is 3/5, and the probability of taking a red ball from Bag B is 1/4. Since the two picks are independent, the probabilities are multiplied: 3/5 × 1/4 = 3/20. A candidate who answers 4/9 has added the numerators and added the denominators, (3+1)/(5+4), instead of multiplying the two fractions. A candidate who answers 17/20 has added the two fractions, 3/5 + 1/4, instead of multiplying them. A candidate who answers 3/25 has misread Bag B as also containing 5 balls, using 1/5 instead of 1/4.
- (d) 5 — Being red and not being red are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of red is 1 − 0.8 = 0.2. The number of red counters is 0.2 × 25 = 5. Using 0.8 directly as the probability of red, without taking the complement, gives 0.8 × 25 = 20 — the number of counters that are NOT red. Sharing the 25 counters equally between the three colours, ignoring the given probability altogether, gives 25 ÷ 3 ≈ 8. Misreading the total as 20 counters instead of 25 gives 0.2 × 20 = 4.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 4/15 — Method: first find how many pupils travel only by car, then write that as a fraction of the 60 pupils surveyed. Working: pupils who walk or cycle or both = 32 + 24 − 12 = 44. Only by car = 60 − 44 = 16. P(only by car) = 16/60 = 4/15. Answer: 4/15. Watch out: writing down 1/5 takes the overlap of 12 pupils on its own, 12/60, mistaking the group who do both for the group who travel only by car. Writing down 4/5 comes from 60 − 12 = 48, subtracting only the overlap from the total instead of the whole walk-or-cycle count, so cyclists and walkers who are not in the overlap are wrongly swept into the only-car group. And writing down 7/15 comes from 60 − 32 = 28, subtracting the walkers alone and forgetting the cyclists altogether.
- (d) 19/30 — Exactly one means only fiction or only non-fiction, not both: 21 + 17 = 38 out of the 60 readers, which simplifies to 19/30. Including the 14 who read both as well gives 21 + 17 + 14 = 52, so 52/60 = 13/15 — that is at least one, not exactly one. Using only the both-count, 14, as the numerator gives 14/60 = 7/30, the probability of reading both, not exactly one. Using 52, the number who read at least one type, as the denominator instead of the full 60 readers surveyed gives 38/52 = 19/26.
- (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.
- (b) 57/100 — Pooling both trials: total heads = 24 + 33 = 57, total flips = 40 + 60 = 100, so the combined relative frequency is 57/100, which is already in its simplest form since 57 and 100 share no common factor. Averaging the two separate relative frequencies instead, (24/40 + 33/60) ÷ 2 = (0.6 + 0.55) ÷ 2 = 0.575 = 23/40, treats the two trials as equally weighted even though Ben made more flips, which is not correct. Using only Leah's data gives 24/40 = 3/5. Using only Ben's data gives 33/60 = 11/20.
- (b) 11/36 — Method: 'at least one' is the opposite of 'none at all', so work out the probability of no 5 on either roll and take it away from 1. Working: a roll that is not a 5 has probability 5/6, and the rolls are independent, so no 5 at all has probability 5/6 × 5/6 = 25/36. Taking this from 36/36 leaves 11/36. Answer: the probability is 11/36. The distractors: 25/36 is the probability of no 5 at all, written down without the final subtraction; 12/36 comes from counting the 6 pairs with a 5 on the first roll and the 6 pairs with a 5 on the second and adding them, which counts the pair (5, 5) twice; 30/36 comes from working out 1 − 1/6 as though only one roll were made.
- (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.
- (a) 43/70 — There are 140 − 85 = 55 Zone B households, and 55 − 21 = 34 of them recycle glass. In total, 52 + 34 = 86 households recycle glass, out of 140: 86/140 = 43/70. Writing 13/35 is wrong because 52/140 simplifies to 13/35, and 52 only counts Zone A, leaving out the 34 Zone B recyclers. Writing 17/70 is wrong because 34/140 simplifies to 17/70, and 34 only counts Zone B, leaving out the 52 Zone A recyclers. Writing 73/140 is wrong because it adds the 52 Zone A recyclers to the 21 Zone B households that do NOT recycle, mixing up two different groups instead of adding the two recycling groups. The probability is 43/70.
- (d) 5/18 — Method: list every ordered pair of dice scores whose difference is 1, then divide by the 36 equally likely pairs. Working: the pairs with a difference of 1 are (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (3, 4), (4, 3), (4, 5), (5, 4), (5, 6) and (6, 5), which is 10 pairs out of 36, cancelling down to 5/18. Answer: 5/18. Watch out: writing down 5/36 lists only the 5 pairs going up, (1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 4), (4, 5) and (5, 6), and misses that each one has a matching pair the other way round, such as (2, 1) — the two dice are different objects, and order matters, so each of those 5 gaps counts twice. Writing down 1/6 treats the six possible differences, 0 to 5, as equally likely and picks 1 out of 6 of them, but a difference of 1 is reached by far more pairs of scores than a difference of 5 is, so the six differences are not equally likely. And writing down 1/4 comes from adding the two dice's outcome counts instead of multiplying them, 6 + 6 = 12, and grouping the six scores into just three non-overlapping pairs one apart, {1, 2}, {3, 4} and {5, 6}, giving 3 out of that wrong pool of 12.
- (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.
- (c) 28 — Reading only is 22 − 6 = 16, and gaming only is 18 − 6 = 12, so exactly one of the two is 16 + 12 = 28. Adding 22 and 18 without removing the 6 who like both, 22 + 18 = 40, counts those 6 students twice. Giving 6 mistakes the number who like both for the number who like exactly one. Finding 22 + 18 − 6 = 34 gives the number who like at least one of reading or gaming, but stops there instead of also removing the 6 who like both to leave only those who like exactly one.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.