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) 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.
- (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.
- (a) 0.368 — Combining both samples, the spinner landed on red 34 + 58 = 92 times out of a total of 85 + 165 = 250 spins, so the best estimate of the probability is 92/250 = 0.368. Writing 0.400 is wrong because it uses only the first sample, 34/85 = 0.400, ignoring the extra 165 spins recorded afterwards. Writing 0.352 is wrong because it uses only the second sample, 58/165 = 0.352 (to 3 decimal places), ignoring the first 85 spins. Writing 0.376 is wrong because it averages the two separate estimates, (0.400 + 0.352) ÷ 2 = 0.376, instead of combining the actual numbers of reds and spins across both samples. The best estimate of the probability that the spinner lands on red, using all 250 spins, is 0.368.
- (b) 1/10 — Method: list every possible pair of subjects systematically, so that no pair is missed and no pair is counted twice, then compare the number of successful pairs with the size of the list. Working: pairing maths with each of the other four gives 4 pairs, physics with each subject after it gives 3, biology gives 2 and chemistry gives 1, so there are 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10 pairs. Exactly one of them is maths with biology. Answer: the probability is 1/10. The distractors: 1/5 comes from counting maths-then-biology and biology-then-maths as two separate successes while still dividing by the 10 unordered pairs; 1/15 comes from a list that also pairs each subject with itself, giving 15 entries instead of 10; 1/4 comes from working out the second step alone, that 1 of the 4 subjects left after maths is biology, without allowing for the chance that maths is picked at all.
- (d) 7/18 — Method: the pupil picked is known to study French, so the sample space shrinks to the 18 French students; divide the number who study both languages by 18. Working: 7 of the pupils study both French and German, and all 7 of them are among the 18 French students, so the probability is 7/18, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 7/18. The distractors: 7/30 divides by the whole class, keeping the restricted numerator but the full denominator; 1/2 is 7/14, which conditions on the German students instead, answering the probability that a German student also studies French; 7/25 uses 18 + 14 minus 7 = 25, the number who study at least one language, which is a larger group than the one the question restricts you to.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 0.512 — Method: independent events that must all happen are combined by multiplying their probabilities. Working: the first two questions give 0.8 × 0.8 = 0.64. Bringing in the third gives 0.64 × 0.8, and since 64 × 8 = 512 with three decimal places in the product, this is 0.512. Answer: the probability is 0.512. The distractors: 0.64 comes from multiplying only two of the three probabilities and stopping; 0.8 comes from reading 'independent' as meaning the probability never changes and writing down the single-question figure; 0.0512 comes from a place-value slip in the last multiplication, counting four decimal places instead of three.
- (b) 12/19 — Method: turn the percentages into expected frequencies out of 1000, total the faulty pens, then divide supplier Y's faulty pens by that total, because the pen picked is known to be faulty. Working: supplier X provided 700 pens and 2% of them are faulty, which is 14 pens. Supplier Y provided 300 pens and 8% of them are faulty, which is 24 pens. Altogether 38 pens are faulty, so the probability is 24/38, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 2 gives 12/19. Answer: the probability is 12/19. The distractors: 3/10 is supplier Y's share of the stock, the answer before the faulty information is used at all; 3/125 is 24/1000, the probability that a pen is from supplier Y and faulty, which stops at the joint probability and never divides by the probability of a fault; 4/5 is 8 divided by 2 + 8, comparing the two fault rates as though the suppliers provided equal numbers of pens, so the 70 to 30 split is thrown away.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 4 — Method: list the elements of each set in full, then find which elements appear in both lists — that is A ∩ B. Working: factors of 12 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12}. Factors of 18 = {1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18}. The elements in both lists are 1, 2, 3 and 6, so A ∩ B = {1, 2, 3, 6} and n(A ∩ B) = 4. Answer: 4. Watch out: writing down 6 gives n(A), the size of the factors-of-12 list on its own, not the size of the overlap. Writing down 8 comes from counting every element that appears in EITHER list, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 18 — that is the union, a different set from the intersection. And writing down 3 misses that 1 is a factor of both 12 and 18, and so belongs in A ∩ B alongside 2, 3 and 6.
- (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.
- (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) 120 — Purple's probability is its angle out of the full circle: 144° ÷ 360° = 2/5. Expected number on purple = 2/5 × 300 = 120. Assuming the three colours are equally likely, ignoring their different angles, gives 300 ÷ 3 = 100. Using orange's angle, 90°, instead of purple's 144° gives a probability of 1/4, so 300 × 1/4 = 75. Treating 144 as a percentage instead of finding its fraction of 360° gives 300 × 0.144 = 43.2, which rounds to 43.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.