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) 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.
- (c) 500 — Method: the expected number of successes is the number of trials multiplied by the probability, so to find the number of trials, divide the expected number by the probability. Working: let n be the number of seeds planted. Then n multiplied by 0.6 must come to 300, so n = 300 ÷ 0.6 = 500. Answer: the grower should plant 500 seeds. The distractors: 180 comes from multiplying instead of dividing, 300 × 0.6 = 180, which answers how many of 300 seeds would germinate; 750 comes from dividing by the probability of not germinating, 300 ÷ 0.4 = 750; 120 comes from multiplying by that same 0.4, 300 × 0.4 = 120.
- (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) 195 — The relative frequency from the trial is 52 ÷ 80 = 0.65, and the expected number of point-up landings in 300 drops is 0.65 × 300 = 195. Giving 52 as the answer reuses the original count from the 80-drop trial without scaling it up to 300 drops at all. Misreading 52 out of 80 as 52% and finding 52% of 300 gives 156. Finding the expected number of point-DOWN landings instead of point-up, using the relative frequency 28 ÷ 80 = 0.35, gives 0.35 × 300 = 105.
- (b) 10 — Method: A′ means everything in the universal set that is NOT in A, so n(A′) = n(universal set) − n(A). Working: the universal set has 15 elements. A = {3, 6, 9, 12, 15}, so n(A) = 5. n(A′) = 15 − 5 = 10. Answer: 10. Watch out: writing down 5 gives n(A) itself, the size of the multiples-of-3 set, which is the opposite of its complement. Writing down 11 comes from missing 15 off the list of multiples of 3, treating A as only {3, 6, 9, 12}, so A is undercounted as 4 and A′ is overstated as 15 − 4. And writing down 12 comes from only listing the multiples of 3 up to 9 — 3, 6 and 9 — and missing that 12 and 15 also belong to A, undercounting A as 3 rather than 5.
- (a) 0.48 — There are two ways to score exactly one throw: scoring on the first and missing the second, 0.6 × 0.4 = 0.24, or missing the first and scoring the second, 0.4 × 0.6 = 0.24. Adding these gives 0.24 + 0.24 = 0.48. Choosing 0.24 comes from working out only one of the two paths and forgetting the other one also gives exactly one score. Choosing 0.36 comes from working out the probability of scoring BOTH throws, 0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36, instead of exactly one. Choosing 0.84 comes from working out the probability of scoring AT LEAST one throw, 1 − 0.4 × 0.4 = 0.84, instead of exactly one.
- (b) 0.150 — The six scores are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1. The probability of not landing on 6 is 1 − 0.25 = 0.75, and this is shared equally between the other five scores, so each has probability 0.75 ÷ 5 = 0.150. Giving 0.750 as the answer stops after finding the probability of not landing on 6, without sharing it out between the five remaining scores. Dividing 0.75 by 6 instead of by 5 gives 0.125, wrongly including the score of 6 among the equally likely scores. Ignoring the bias completely and dividing 1 by all six scores gives 1 ÷ 6 = 0.167.
- (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.
- (c) 9/25 — The frequency tree already shows the swim-and-cycle branch directly: 54 out of 150, which simplifies to 9/25. Adding both cycling branches together, 54 + 18 = 72, gives the total number of cyclists, so 72/150 = 12/25, not just those who also swim. Using the non-swimmers' cycling figure, 18, gives 18/150 = 3/25, the probability of cycling WITHOUT swimming. Using the swimmers' total of 90, before splitting by cycling, gives 90/150 = 3/5, the probability of swimming on its own.
- (b) 1/4 — Method: the person picked is known to be aged 30 or over, so the sample space is those 140 people; divide the number of them who had been to the cinema by 140. Working: 35 of the 140 people aged 30 or over had been to the cinema, giving 35/140. Dividing the numerator and the denominator by 35 gives 1/4. Answer: the probability is 1/4. The distractors: 7/20 is 35/100, taking the count from the older group but the total from the under 30s, which is reading across the wrong row; 7/48 is 35/240, dividing by everyone surveyed instead of by the age group named; 3/4 is 105/140, the probability that someone aged 30 or over had NOT been to the cinema, the opposite event inside the correct group.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 11/20 — Method: the person picked is known to own a bicycle, so work inside the 20 bicycle owners and count how many of them do not own a car. Working: 9 of the 20 bicycle owners also own a car, so 11 of them do not. The probability is 11/20, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 11/20. The distractors: 9/20 gives the bicycle owners who DO own a car, answering the opposite event inside the correct group; 11/50 divides by the whole group of 50, keeping the restricted numerator but the full denominator; 11/32 puts the count over the number of car owners, conditioning on the wrong group entirely.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.