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
- (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.
- (b) £13.50 — The total cost of Nadia's 25 tickets is 25 × £1.50 = £37.50. The expected number of winning tickets is 25 × 0.12 = 3, so the expected prize money is 3 × £8 = £24.00. Nadia's expected loss is the cost minus the expected prize money: £37.50 − £24.00 = £13.50. A candidate who answers £24.00 has given the expected prize money and mistaken it for the loss. A candidate who answers £37.50 has given the total cost of the tickets, forgetting to subtract the expected prize money. A candidate who answers £34.50 has subtracted the expected number of wins, 3, from the cost instead of first converting it to prize money by multiplying by £8.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 19/100 — It is easier to first find the probability that NEITHER component is faulty, then subtract from 1. The probability a component is not faulty is 9/10, so the probability neither is faulty is 9/10 × 9/10 = 81/100. So the probability at least one is faulty is 1 − 81/100 = 19/100. Choosing 1/5 comes from adding the two probabilities of a fault instead, 1/10 + 1/10 = 1/5, which double-counts the case where both are faulty. Choosing 1/10 comes from giving the probability for just one component being faulty. Choosing 1/100 comes from squaring the probability of a fault directly, 1/10 × 1/10 = 1/100, which is actually the probability that BOTH are faulty, not at least one.
- (c) 1/36 — Method: the two dice do not affect each other, so the probability that both results happen is the product of the two separate probabilities. Working: a 1 on the red dice has probability 1/6 and a 2 on the blue dice has probability 1/6. Multiplying gives 1 × 1 = 1 on the top and 6 × 6 = 36 on the bottom. Answer: the probability is 1/36. The distractors: 1/18 comes from allowing either order, counting a 2 on the red dice with a 1 on the blue dice as well, although the stem names which dice shows which score; 1/3 comes from adding 1/6 and 1/6 instead of multiplying; 1/6 comes from giving the probability for one dice only and treating the other as making no difference.
- (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) 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) 36/91 — Method: P(both red | same colour) = P(both red) ÷ P(same colour), where P(same colour) = P(both red) + P(both green). Working: P(both red) = 9/20 × 8/19 = 72/380 = 18/95. P(both green) = 11/20 × 10/19 = 110/380 = 11/38. P(same colour) = 18/95 + 11/38 = 36/190 + 55/190 = 91/190. P(both red | same colour) = (36/190) ÷ (91/190) = 36/91. Answer: 36/91. Watch out: stopping at 18/95 gives P(both red) itself, without dividing by the probability that the colours matched at all. Working out 55/91 finds the same-colour probability for green instead of red — check which colour's count you are putting on top. And 9/20 is just the chance the first ball drawn is red, which ignores the second draw and the without-replacement condition completely.
- (c) 102 — Method: turn the past record into a relative frequency, then use it as an estimate of the probability of rain and multiply by the number of days being predicted for. Working: relative frequency of rain = 70 ÷ 250 = 0.28. Expected rainy days in 365 days = 365 × 0.28 = 102.2, which rounds to about 102 days. Answer: about 102 days. Watch out: writing down 48 swaps which number is the sample and which is the target, working out 70 ÷ 365 × 250 instead of 70 ÷ 250 × 365. Writing down 70 just repeats the original count of rainy days without scaling it up to the new, longer period at all. And writing down 110 comes from rounding the relative frequency to 0.3 before multiplying, 365 × 0.3 = 109.5, when 70 ÷ 250 is exactly 0.28 and needs no rounding at all.
- (b) 1/6 — Method: list the ordered pairs where the two scores match, and divide by the 36 equally likely pairs. Working: the matching pairs are (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), (4, 4), (5, 5) and (6, 6), which is 6 pairs out of 36, cancelling down to 1/6. Answer: 1/6. Watch out: writing down 1/36 finds the probability of one particular double, such as (6, 6), rather than any double at all. Guessing 1/2 treats 'same' and 'different' as equally likely events, when there are only 6 matching pairs against 30 non-matching ones. And writing down 1/3 comes from listing each double twice, once for each order of the two dice, giving 12 pairs out of 36 — but (1, 1) is a single outcome, and swapping the two dice over does not produce a second one.
- (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.
- (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) 7/15 — Both socks are the same colour either if both are red or if both are blue. The probability both are red is 4/6 × 3/5 = 12/30. The probability both are blue is 2/6 × 1/5 = 2/30. Adding these gives 12/30 + 2/30 = 14/30 = 7/15. Choosing 2/5 comes from only working out the 'both red' path, 12/30, and forgetting the 'both blue' path also counts. Choosing 5/9 comes from treating the draws as if the first sock were replaced, using 4/6 × 4/6 + 2/6 × 2/6 = 20/36 = 5/9, instead of reducing the totals for the second draw. Choosing 7/18 comes from reducing the number of socks removed but not the number left to choose from, using 4/6 × 3/6 + 2/6 × 1/6 = 14/36 = 7/18, instead of 5 remaining socks for the second draw.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.