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
- (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.
- (c) 1/2 — Method: restrict to the students who did NOT bring a packed lunch, then find what fraction of that group are girls. Girls without lunch = 42 − 24 = 18. Boys = 70 − 42 = 28, so boys without lunch = 28 − 10 = 18. Total without lunch = 18 + 18 = 36. Working: P(girl | no lunch) = 18 ÷ 36 = 1/2. Answer: 1/2. Watch out: dividing 18 by 42 (the total number of girls) instead of by 36 finds P(no lunch | girl), the reverse conditional. Dividing by 70 (the whole trip) ignores that you already know the student did not bring a lunch. And using the 'brought a lunch' numbers (24 out of 34) answers the question for the wrong group entirely — you were asked about the students who did NOT bring one.
- (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) 38% — Method: the two swimming percentages are quoted inside different age groups, so weight each one by the size of its group and add the two results. Working: the under 18s are 45% of the members and 60% of them swim, giving 0.45 × 60 = 27% of all the members. The members aged 18 or over are 55% of the members and 20% of them swim, giving 0.55 × 20 = 11% of all the members. Adding these gives 38%. Answer: 38% of the members swim each week. The distractors: 80% comes from adding 60% and 20% straight off, treating two rates quoted inside different groups as though they could be added; 40% is the mean of 60% and 20%, which would be right only if the two age groups were the same size, and they are not; 42% comes from pairing each swimming rate with the wrong age group, working out 0.45 × 20 added to 0.55 × 60.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 3/8 — Method: write out every result of the three coins as a string of three letters, H for heads and T for tails, count the results that match the description and divide by how many results the list holds. Working: each coin lands two ways and no coin affects another, so the list holds 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 equally likely results. Exactly two heads means one coin lands on tails and the other two on heads, so the results are HHT, HTH and THH — 3 of the 8. Answer: the probability is 3/8. The distractors: 4/8 comes from reading 'exactly two heads' as 'at least two heads' and counting HHH as well; 2/8 comes from a list made without a system, in which HHT and THH are written down and HTH, the result with the tail between the two heads, is missed; 6/8 comes from counting 3 × 2 = 6 ways of picking which two of the three coins show heads, which counts every pair of coins twice, once in each order.
- (d) 1/8 — Method: a run of flips of a fair coin gives equally likely sequences of heads and tails, so count the sequences that match and divide by how many sequences there are. Working: each flip lands two ways and no flip affects another, so three flips give 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 equally likely sequences: HHH, HHT, HTH, HTT, THH, THT, TTH and TTT. Only HHH has a head at every flip, so 1 sequence of the 8 matches. Answer: the probability is 1/8. The distractors: 1/4 comes from treating 'three heads', 'two heads', 'one head' and 'no heads' as four equally likely results, which they are not, since one sequence gives three heads and three sequences give two; 1/6 comes from taking the number of sequences to be 2 + 2 + 2 = 6, adding the two ways each flip can land instead of multiplying them; 1/2 comes from reading the first flip only and giving the probability of a head on one flip, without combining it with the other two.
- (b) 41/160 — In total, 27 + 14 = 41 of the 160 employees cycle to work, so the probability is 41/160 (41 and 160 share no common factor, so this is already in its simplest form). Writing 27/160 is wrong because it only counts the full-time cyclists and leaves out the 14 part-time cyclists. Writing 41/90 is wrong because it uses the full-time total (90) as the denominator instead of the whole survey (160). Writing 1/5 is wrong because it only uses the part-time branch, simplifying 14/70 to 1/5 and ignoring the full-time cyclists completely. The probability is 41/160.
- (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.
- (d) 0.80 — Evens is exactly halfway along the scale, at 0.5, and 3/10 written as a decimal is 0.3. A probability 3/10 higher than evens is 0.5 + 0.3 = 0.80. Giving 0.30 as the answer converts the increase but never adds it to the value of evens. Adding the increase to 1, the 'certain' end of the scale, instead of to evens gives 1 + 0.3 = 1.30, which cannot be a probability. Writing 3/10 as 0.03 instead of 0.3, a place-value slip, gives 0.5 + 0.03 = 0.53.
- (a) 1200 — Method: take the estimate from the larger sample, because an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the true probability as the sample grows, then multiply by the number of bulbs made in a week. Working: Inspector B tested 500 bulbs, far more than Inspector A's 40, so use B's relative frequency: 30 ÷ 500 = 0.06. A week's production is 4000 × 5 = 20000 bulbs. The expected number of faulty bulbs is 20000 × 0.06 = 1200. Answer: about 1200 faulty bulbs a week. The distractors: 2000 uses Inspector A's estimate, 4 ÷ 40 = 0.1, giving 20000 × 0.1 = 2000, and so rests on a sample of only 40 bulbs; 1600 comes from averaging the two estimates of 0.1 and 0.06 to get 0.08, and 20000 × 0.08 = 1600, which gives the small sample equal weight with the large one; 240 uses the right estimate but stops at a single day, 4000 × 0.06 = 240.
- (a) 75% — 'Percentage of the women' restricts the group to the 80 women, of whom 60 attend yoga: 60/80 = 0.75 = 75%. Dividing by the number of men (200 − 80 = 120) instead of the number of women gives 60/120 = 0.5 = 50%. Dividing by all 200 members instead of just the 80 women gives 60/200 = 0.3 = 30%. Using the 20 women who do NOT attend yoga (80 − 60) as the numerator instead of the 60 who do gives 20/80 = 0.25 = 25%.
- (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) 9/28 — Method: two linked steps. Total everyone whose test is positive, since the person picked is known to be one of them, then divide the positive tests that belong to people with the condition by that total. Working: 45 positive tests come from people who have the condition and 95 come from people who do not, so 140 tests are positive. The people with the condition give 45/140, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 5 gives 9/28. Answer: the probability is 9/28. The distractors: 9/10 is 45/50, the probability of a positive test given that the person has the condition, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and is the figure a candidate quotes when the two are confused; 9/200 is 45/1000, dividing by everyone tested rather than by the 140 who tested positive; 1/20 is 50/1000, the probability that a person has the condition before the test result is used at all.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.