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) 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.
- (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.
- (c) The green bag (7/24) — Method: fractions can only be ordered once they share a denominator, so rewrite all four over the lowest common denominator and compare the numerators. Working: the lowest common denominator of 12, 8, 24 and 3 is 24, and scaling gives 5/12 = 10/24, 3/8 = 9/24, 7/24 stays as it is, and 1/3 = 8/24; the numerators are then 10, 9, 7 and 8. Answer: the smallest numerator is 7, so the green bag, with 7/24, is the least likely and sits furthest to the left on the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: the red bag (5/12) comes from finding the largest of the four probabilities instead of the smallest; the blue bag (3/8) comes from scaling 3/8 by changing only the denominator to 24, which turns it into 3/24 and makes it look the smallest; the yellow bag (1/3) comes from comparing numerators alone and assuming the fraction with the numerator 1 must be the smallest.
- (c) 325 — Method: first find the relative frequency of NOT landing on red from the 200 spins, then scale that up to 500 spins. Working: non-red results = 50 + 80 = 130, out of 200 spins, so P(not red) = 130 ÷ 200 = 0.65. Expected non-red results in 500 spins = 500 × 0.65 = 325. Answer: 325. Watch out: writing down 175 finds the expected number of RED results instead, 70 ÷ 200 × 500 = 175, answering the opposite of what was asked. Writing down 250 assumes landing red or not landing red must be a fair 50-50 split, but the spinner is biased and the actual results do not split evenly. And writing down 130 stops after finding how many of the 200 spins were non-red and forgets to scale that figure up to the 500 spins asked for.
- (d) 75% — Method: count how many cards are not hearts, write that count over the total number of cards, cancel the fraction down and then turn it into a percentage. Working: 52 − 13 = 39 cards are not hearts, so the probability is 39/52; dividing the numerator and the denominator by 13 gives 3/4, and 3/4 = 0.75, so 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%, three quarters of the way along the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: 25% comes from giving the probability that the card is a heart, 13 out of 52, which cancels to 1/4; 50% comes from reading 'not a heart' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 39% comes from writing the count of 39 cards straight down as the percentage without comparing it with the 52 cards in the pack.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 3 pupils — Method: an expected frequency is the probability multiplied by the number of trials, so multiply the probability by the number of pupils. Working: 30 × 1/10 means finding one tenth of 30, and 30 ÷ 10 = 3. Answer: 3 pupils would be expected to have a nut allergy. The distractors: 27 pupils comes from working out how many are expected NOT to have the allergy, 30 − 3, instead of how many are; 10 pupils comes from reading the 10 in the fraction 1/10 as the number of pupils; 1 pupil comes from reading the numerator of the fraction as the expected number.
- (b) 15/32 — Method: there are two ways to get one of each colour, red then blue and blue then red. Work out the probability of each path by multiplying, then add the two paths. Working: red then blue is 5/8 × 3/8 = 15/64, and blue then red is 3/8 × 5/8 = 15/64. Adding the two paths gives 30/64. Answer: the probability is 15/32. The distractors: 15/64 comes from working out red then blue only and forgetting that blue then red also gives one of each; 15/28 comes from doubling correctly but reducing the total to 7 for the second spin, which is what happens to a bag when an item is kept out, not to a spinner; 39/64 comes from working from the opposite event and subtracting only the two-red case, 1 − 25/64, leaving the two-blue case inside the answer.
- (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.
- (b) 3 times as likely — Method: to say how many times as likely one event is as another, divide the larger probability by the smaller one; subtracting them gives the gap between the two probabilities, not the multiple. Working: both probabilities are counted in tenths, so 6/10 ÷ 2/10 compares 6 tenths with 2 tenths, and 6 ÷ 2 = 3. Answer: winning at the hoopla stall is 3 times as likely, which is why 6/10 sits three times as far along the 0 to 1 scale as 2/10. The distractors: 4 times as likely comes from subtracting the two counts, 6 − 2, instead of dividing them, which measures the gap rather than the multiple; 6 times as likely comes from reading the larger probability's 6 tenths straight off as the multiple without ever comparing it with the 2 tenths at the other stall; 12 times as likely comes from multiplying the two counts, 6 × 2, instead of dividing one by the other.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.