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.
Answer key: Probability worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (b) 1/4 — There are 6 × 2 = 12 equally likely outcomes. The even-numbered cards are 2, 4 and 6, so there are 3 × 1 = 3 outcomes with an even card and tails, giving a probability of 3/12 = 1/4. Choosing 1/2 comes from working out only the probability of drawing an even card, 3/6, and forgetting to combine it with the coin landing on tails. Choosing 1/12 comes from treating only one specific outcome, such as card 6 with tails, as the only one that counts, instead of all three even cards paired with tails. Choosing 1/8 comes from doubling the coin stage when counting the total, using 6 × 2 × 2 = 24 outcomes instead of 6 × 2 = 12, and giving 3/24 = 1/8.
- (a) 0.30 — Red, blue, green and yellow are exhaustive, so all four probabilities sum to 1: 0.24 + 0.16 + x + x = 1, so 2x + 0.40 = 1, giving 2x = 0.60 and x = 0.30. Stopping at 2x = 0.60 without dividing by 2 leaves 0.60, the combined probability of both blue and green together, not the value of x on its own. Sharing the 0.60 across all four colours instead of just the two unknown ones gives 0.60 ÷ 4 = 0.15. Leaving out the 0.16 for yellow gives 2x + 0.24 = 1, so 2x = 0.76 and x = 0.38.
- (a) 0.54 — The four colours are exhaustive, so all four probabilities sum to 1: the probability of damson is 1 − 0.18 − 0.22 − 0.24 = 0.36. Amber and damson cannot both happen on one spin, so the probability of amber or damson is 0.18 + 0.36 = 0.54. Stopping after finding the probability of damson alone, without adding the probability of amber, gives 0.36. Adding the three given probabilities together, 0.18 + 0.22 + 0.24 = 0.64, and treating that total as the answer never finds the probability of damson at all. Subtracting only the probability of amber from 1, 1 − 0.18 = 0.82, ignores black, cyan and damson completely.
- (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.
- (b) 80 — To find the number of attempts needed, divide the target number of successes by the probability of success: 60 ÷ 0.75 = 80. Writing 45 is wrong because 60 × 0.75 = 45 multiplies instead of dividing — that is the number of successes expected from 60 attempts, not the number of attempts needed for 60 successes. Writing 240 is wrong because 60 ÷ 0.25 = 240 uses 0.25, the probability of MISSING, instead of 0.75, the probability of scoring. Writing 90 is wrong because it comes from misremembering 0.75 as 2/3 and dividing by that instead: 60 ÷ (2/3) = 90. She needs to attempt 80 free throws.
- (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) 0.45, 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.
- (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.
- (b) 3/10 — Method: on a tree diagram, follow the path that matches the description and multiply the probabilities written along it; with nothing put back, the second set of branches is worked out from the counters that are left. Working: 3 of the 5 counters are yellow, so the first branch of the path is 3/5. A yellow counter has been kept out, so 4 counters remain and both green counters are still there, making the second branch 2/4. Multiplying along the path gives 6/20. Answer: the probability is 3/10. The distractors: 6/25 comes from using 2/5 on the second branch, which is the tree for a counter that is put back; 3/20 comes from taking one off the green count as well as off the total, using 1/4 on the second branch; 3/5 comes from reading the first branch only and never multiplying along the path.
- (b) 70 — Saloon, estate and hatchback are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of a hatchback is 1 − 0.28 − 0.37 = 0.35. The number of hatchbacks is 0.35 × 200 = 70. Treating the SUM of the other two probabilities, 0.28 + 0.37 = 0.65, as the probability of a hatchback instead of its complement gives 0.65 × 200 = 130. Multiplying the correct probability, 0.35, by 100 instead of the 200 cars actually surveyed gives 35. Averaging the two given probabilities, (0.28 + 0.37) ÷ 2 = 0.325, instead of subtracting them from 1, and then multiplying by 200 gives 65.
- (b) 8/35 — Method: the pupil picked is known to play at least one of the two sports, so first count how many pupils that is, then divide the number who play both by it. Working: 25 play football and 18 play tennis, but the 8 who play both have been counted in each figure, so the number who play at least one sport is 25 + 18 minus 8, which is 35. The pupils who play both give 8/35, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 8/35. The distractors: 2/15 is 8/60, dividing by the whole year group instead of by the 35 pupils who play at least one sport; 8/43 uses 25 + 18 as the denominator, forgetting that the 8 pupils who play both have been counted twice; 8/25 conditions on the footballers alone, answering the probability that a footballer also plays tennis rather than using every pupil who plays a sport.
- (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.
- (c) Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%. — Converting 11/32 to a decimal gives 11 ÷ 32 = 0.34375, which is greater than 34% (0.34), so Noah has the better save rate: 'Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%.' Comparing the raw numbers 34 and 11 directly, without converting the fraction to the same form, gives 'Elin — 34 is bigger than 11.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning a bigger value, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Noah — 32 is a bigger denominator.' Rounding 34.375% to 34% to the nearest whole percent hides the difference and gives 'Equal — both round to 34% to the nearest percent.'
- (a) 1276 — Method: an unbiased relative frequency tends towards the theoretical probability as the number of trials increases, so use the record resting on the most trials, then multiply by the number of new trials. Working: the three records rest on 50, 200 and 1000 drops, so the most reliable is the one after 1000 drops, namely 0.638, and the run is indeed settling as the trials increase. The expected number of point up landings in 2000 further drops is 2000 × 0.638 = 1276. Answer: about 1276 times. The distractors: 1440 uses the earliest record, which rests on only 50 drops, giving 2000 × 0.720 = 1440; 1330 uses the middle record, treating 200 drops as a safe compromise when 1000 drops is better still, giving 2000 × 0.665 = 1330; 1348 comes from averaging the three records, since 0.720 + 0.665 + 0.638 = 2.023 and 2.023 ÷ 3 = 0.674, then 2000 × 0.674 = 1348, which gives the 50 drop record the same weight as the 1000 drop record.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.