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
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 0.15 — Let P(water) = x, so P(coffee) = 3x. The four outcomes are exhaustive: 0.36 + 0.04 + x + 3x = 1, so 0.4 + 4x = 1, giving 4x = 0.6 and x = 0.15. So P(water) = 0.15. Reporting 3x, the coffee probability, instead of water gives 0.45. Splitting the remaining 0.6 evenly between coffee and water, ignoring the 3:1 ratio, gives 0.30. Stopping once the remaining probability 0.6 is found, without dividing by the four equal shares, gives 0.60.
- (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.
- (c) 1/56 — Method: for draws without replacement, multiply a chain of three fractions where both the numerator (reds remaining) and the denominator (counters remaining) fall by one after each draw. Working: P(all three red) = 3/8 × 2/7 × 1/6 = 6/336 = 1/56. Answer: 1/56. Watch out: using 3/8 for all three draws (27/512) treats the counters as if they were replaced each time. Reducing only the numerator each draw (3/8 × 2/8 × 1/8) forgets that the total number of counters left in the bag also falls. And reducing only the denominator while keeping the numerator at 3 each time (3/8 × 3/7 × 3/6) forgets that a red counter has actually left the bag.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 1/3 — Method: for two independent spinners, multiply the probability of each separate outcome, but first work out each spinner's own probability correctly, using how many of its equal sections actually carry that result. Working: Spinner A has 2 even numbers, 2 and 4, out of 4 sections, so P(even) = 2/4 = 1/2. Spinner B has 2 red sections out of 3, so P(red) = 2/3. Multiplying gives 1/2 × 2/3, which cancels down to 1/3. Answer: 1/3. Watch out: writing down 1/4 treats Spinner B's two colours as equally likely and uses 1/2 for red, when in fact 2 of its 3 sections are red — the sections are not split evenly between the two colours. Writing down 1/6 undercounts Spinner A's even numbers as just one out of four instead of two. And writing down 5/6 applies the 'at least one' formula, P(A) + P(B) − P(A)×P(B), which answers a different question about EITHER spinner landing the right way, not both together.
- (c) 0.2 — Let P(green) = x, so P(blue) = 2x. Red, blue, green and yellow are exhaustive: 0.05 + 0.35 + x + 2x = 1, so 0.4 + 3x = 1, giving 3x = 0.6 and x = 0.2. So P(green) = 0.2. Splitting the remaining 0.6 evenly between blue and green, ignoring the 2:1 ratio, gives 0.3. Working out x correctly but then reporting 2x, the probability of blue, gives 0.4. Stopping after finding that blue and green together account for 0.6, without dividing by the three equal shares of x, gives 0.6.
- (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) 47 — Method: fill the first pair of branches of the frequency tree, then the failures on each branch, then add only the failing end branches. Working: 70% of 200 is 140, so 140 cars were more than 3 years old and 200 − 140 = 60 cars were 3 years old or less. One quarter of the older cars failed: 140 ÷ 4 = 35. The newer branch gives 12 failures. Adding the two failing branches gives 35 + 12 = 47. Answer: 47 of the cars failed the test. The distractors: 35 is the older branch on its own, with the 12 newer failures never added; 62 comes from taking 1 in 4 of all the cars, 200 ÷ 4 = 50, and then adding the 12; 153 is 200 − 47 and counts the cars that passed.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.