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) 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.
- (a) 0.09 — Method: two independent events that must both happen are combined by multiplying their probabilities. Working: the same probability 0.3 applies to each day, so the calculation is 0.3 × 0.3. Written as fractions this is 3/10 × 3/10 = 9/100. Answer: the probability is 0.09. The distractors: 0.6 comes from adding 0.3 and 0.3 instead of multiplying them; 0.3 comes from quoting the single-day probability, as though the second day added no further condition; 0.9 comes from multiplying 3 by 3 correctly but keeping only one decimal place in the product instead of two.
- (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) 7/8 — Method: 'at least one head' is the opposite of 'no heads at all', so work out the probability of three tails and take it away from 1. Working: a flip that is not a head has probability 1/2, and the flips are independent, so three tails in a row has probability 1/2 × 1/2 × 1/2 = 1/8. Taking this from 8/8 leaves 7/8. Answer: the probability is 7/8. The distractors: 1/8 is the probability of three tails, written down without the final subtraction; 3/8 is the probability of exactly one head, which comes from reading 'at least one' as 'exactly one'; 1/2 comes from giving the probability of a head on a single flip and ignoring that three flips are made.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 0.16 — The probability that Kofi fails a single attempt is 1 − 0.6 = 0.4. Since the attempts are independent, the probability he fails both is 0.4 × 0.4 = 0.16. Choosing 0.36 comes from squaring the probability of PASSING instead, 0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36, which is the probability of passing both attempts, not failing both. Choosing 0.4 comes from giving the probability of failing just one attempt, forgetting to combine two attempts. Choosing 0.24 comes from multiplying the fail probability by the pass probability, 0.4 × 0.6 = 0.24, mixing up passing and failing between the two attempts.
- (b) 60 — Method: independence means the proportion of part timers among the cyclists is the same as the proportion among all the employees, so find that proportion and apply it to the cyclists. Working: 150 of the 400 employees work part time, which is a proportion of 0.375. Applying it to the 160 cyclists gives 0.375 × 160 = 60 employees. Answer: you would expect 60 employees. The distractors: 310 adds 150 and 160, treating the group who do both as everyone who does one thing or the other; 10 subtracts 150 from 160, reading 'both' as the difference between the two counts; 75 halves the 150 part timers, assuming that independence means they split evenly between cyclists and non cyclists, which would need exactly half the workforce to cycle.
- (d) 5 — Being red and not being red are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of red is 1 − 0.8 = 0.2. The number of red counters is 0.2 × 25 = 5. Using 0.8 directly as the probability of red, without taking the complement, gives 0.8 × 25 = 20 — the number of counters that are NOT red. Sharing the 25 counters equally between the three colours, ignoring the given probability altogether, gives 25 ÷ 3 ≈ 8. Misreading the total as 20 counters instead of 25 gives 0.2 × 20 = 4.
- (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.
- (d) 1/20 — Method: add the counts on the faulty end branches, divide by the total number of items in the experiment, then cancel. Working: the faulty items number 15 + 5 = 20, and 400 items were checked, so the probability is 20/400. Dividing the top and the bottom by 20 gives 1/20. Answer: the probability is 1/20. The distractors: 3/50 is 15/250 and comes from dividing machine A's faults by machine A's output, which is that machine's own fault rate rather than the probability for the whole batch; 1/30 is 5/150 and does the same on machine B's branch; 19/20 is 380/400 and gives the probability that the item picked is not faulty.
- (d) 1/15 — The probability that the first bead is red is 3/10. Since the first bead is not put back, there are now only 2 red beads left out of 9 beads in total, so the probability that the second bead is also red is 2/9. Multiplying these, 3/10 × 2/9 = 6/90 = 1/15. A candidate who answers 9/100 has treated the beads as replaced, using 3/10 twice. A candidate who answers 3/50 has correctly reduced the red count to 2 for the second pick but forgotten that the total also falls to 9, using 2/10 instead. A candidate who answers 5/19 has added the numerators and added the denominators, (3+2)/(10+9), instead of multiplying.
- (b) 1/8 — Shrubs, bedding plants and trees are the three branches at the first stage of the tree, so they must total 240: tree sales = 240 − 96 − 114 = 30. So P(tree) = 30/240 = 1/8. Using the shrub count instead, 96/240 = 2/5, is the probability of a shrub sale, not a tree sale. Using the bedding-plant count instead, 114/240 = 19/40, is the probability of a bedding-plant sale. Subtracting the bedding count from the shrub count (114 − 96 = 18) instead of subtracting both from 240 gives 18/240 = 3/40, which is not the number of tree sales at all.
- (b) 500 — Method: when a dice is known to be fair, the theoretical probability is the best thing to work from, and the more trials there are the closer the results tend to it. Working: for a fair dice the probability of a six is 1/6, so the expected number of sixes in 3000 rolls is 3000 × 1 ÷ 6 = 500. The class experiment gave a relative frequency of 14/60, but 60 trials is far too few to overturn a known theoretical value, and the school's 3000 rolls will tend towards 1/6 in any case. Answer: about 500 sixes. The distractors: 700 comes from using the class relative frequency instead of the theory, 3000 × 14 ÷ 60 = 700; 600 comes from splitting the difference between the two, since 1/6 is about 0.167 and 14/60 is about 0.233, whose mean is 0.2, and 3000 × 0.2 = 600; 2500 uses 5/6 instead of 1/6 and counts the rolls expected not to be a six.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.