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
- (c) 0.04 — Method: 'made by machine B and faulty' is the second branch of a tree followed after the first, so multiply the probability of machine B by the probability of a fault given machine B. Working: machine B makes 0.4 of the bolts, and 0.1 of those bolts are faulty, so the probability is 0.4 × 0.1 = 0.04. Answer: the probability is 0.04. The distractors: 0.5 comes from adding 0.4 and 0.1 instead of multiplying, treating two stages of one journey as two separate outcomes; 0.1 gives the fault rate for machine B on its own, as though every bolt in the factory came from machine B, so the 40% share is never used; 0.07 is 0.6 × 0.05 added to 0.4 × 0.1, the probability that a bolt is faulty whichever machine made it, which answers a question about all the production rather than about machine B.
- (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.
- (d) 7/15 — Both socks are the same colour either if both are red or if both are blue. The probability both are red is 4/6 × 3/5 = 12/30. The probability both are blue is 2/6 × 1/5 = 2/30. Adding these gives 12/30 + 2/30 = 14/30 = 7/15. Choosing 2/5 comes from only working out the 'both red' path, 12/30, and forgetting the 'both blue' path also counts. Choosing 5/9 comes from treating the draws as if the first sock were replaced, using 4/6 × 4/6 + 2/6 × 2/6 = 20/36 = 5/9, instead of reducing the totals for the second draw. Choosing 7/18 comes from reducing the number of socks removed but not the number left to choose from, using 4/6 × 3/6 + 2/6 × 1/6 = 14/36 = 7/18, instead of 5 remaining socks for the second draw.
- (d) 1/5 — Method: list the pairs systematically, work out each total, then count the pairs that meet the condition and compare that count with the length of the list. Working: the pairs and their totals are 1 and 2 giving 3, 1 and 3 giving 4, 1 and 4 giving 5, 1 and 5 giving 6, 2 and 3 giving 5, 2 and 4 giving 6, 2 and 5 giving 7, 3 and 4 giving 7, 3 and 5 giving 8, and 4 and 5 giving 9. That is 10 pairs, of which 2 have a total of more than 7. Answer: the probability is 1/5. The distractors: 2/5 comes from counting the totals of exactly 7 as well, reading 'more than 7' as '7 or more'; 1/10 comes from finding only the pair 4 and 5 and missing that 3 and 5 also beat 7; 4/5 comes from counting the pairs on the wrong side of the condition, the 8 pairs whose total is 7 or less.
- (c) 1/10 — On the adult branch, 210 − 189 = 21 appointments were missed. There are 300 − 210 = 90 child appointments, and 90 − 81 = 9 of those were missed. In total, 21 + 9 = 30 appointments were missed, out of 300: 30/300 = 1/10. Writing 7/100 is wrong because 21/300 simplifies to 7/100, and 21 only counts the adult branch, leaving out the 9 missed child appointments. Writing 3/100 is wrong because 9/300 simplifies to 3/100, and 9 only counts the child branch, leaving out the 21 missed adult appointments. Writing 1/9 is wrong because it divides the 30 missed appointments by the 270 that were attended (300 − 30) instead of by the whole 300 booked. The probability is 1/10.
- (c) 39.5% — Win, draw and lose are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 100%: 42% + 18.5% = 60.5% is the percentage that wins or draws. 100% − 60.5% = 39.5% is the percentage that neither wins nor draws. Adding 42% and 18.5% and stopping there, 60.5%, is the probability of winning or drawing, not of neither. Subtracting only the 42% from 100% gives 58.0%, ignoring the draw percentage. Subtracting only the 18.5% from 100% gives 81.5%, ignoring the win percentage.
- (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) 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) 6/25 — The probability of winning on any one spin is 2/5, and the probability of losing on any one spin is 3/5. Since the spins are independent, multiply the probability of winning on the first spin by the probability of losing on the second spin: 2/5 × 3/5 = 6/25. A candidate who answers 4/25 has used the winning probability for both spins, 2/5 × 2/5. A candidate who answers 9/25 has used the losing probability for both spins, 3/5 × 3/5. A candidate who answers 3/10 has treated the spins as if they were dependent, reducing the second spin's denominator to 4.
- (d) 1/4 — Method: a product is odd only when BOTH factors are odd, so list the ordered pairs where both scores are odd and divide by 36. Working: the odd scores on a dice are 1, 3 and 5, so there are 3 × 3 = 9 ordered pairs where both scores are odd, out of the 36 equally likely pairs, cancelling down to 1/4. Answer: 1/4. Watch out: writing down 3/4 finds the probability that AT LEAST ONE score is odd, 1 minus the probability both are even, which is a different, easier condition to meet than both being odd. Considering only the first dice's score and ignoring the second gives 1/2, since 3 of the first dice's 6 scores are odd — but the product also depends on what the second dice shows. And writing down 1/12 comes from counting only the pairs where the SAME odd number appears twice, (1, 1), (3, 3) and (5, 5), missing pairs like (1, 3) and (5, 1) where the two odd scores differ.
- (b) 100 — The sample shows a proportion of 8/60 = 2/15 faulty. Apply that proportion to the new batch of 750: 750 × 2/15 = 100. Flipping the ratio, calculating 8/750 × 60 instead of 8/60 × 750, gives 0.64, which rounds to about 1. Assuming the same number of faulty items applies to the new batch, without scaling for its larger size, just repeats the sample's count of 8. Rounding the proportion 8/60 = 0.1333... down to 0.1 before multiplying gives 750 × 0.1 = 75.
- (b) 3/10 — The number who use at least one app is 90 − 20 = 70. Since 55 + 42 double-counts the overlap, n(X ∩ Y) = 55 + 42 − 70 = 27, so P(both) = 27/90 = 3/10. Forgetting to subtract the 20 who use neither, and using the full 90 as the union, gives 55 + 42 − 90 = 7, so 7/90. Reporting the probability of using X or Y (or both), 70/90 = 7/9, answers a different question about the union, not the overlap. Reporting the probability of using neither app, 20/90 = 2/9, is the complement of the union, not the intersection.
- (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) 56 — Method: count the trials over the whole period first, then multiply the number of trials by the probability. Working: 4 weeks is 4 × 7 = 28 days, and at 25 trains a day that is 25 × 28 = 700 trains. The expected number of late trains is 700 × 0.08 = 56. Answer: about 56 late trains over the 4 weeks. The distractors: 2 is the expected number for a single day, 25 × 0.08 = 2, with the 28 days never brought in; 14 uses one week instead of four, 25 × 7 × 0.08 = 14; 644 is 700 − 56 and counts the trains expected to be on time.
- (a) 753 — The estimate from 2000 spins is the most reliable, since it comes from the largest sample size, so the best estimate of the probability is 0.251. Over a further 3000 spins, the expected number landing on green is 3000 × 0.251 = 753. Writing 1050 is wrong because 3000 × 0.350 = 1050 uses the estimate from only 20 spins, the LEAST reliable of the three. Writing 870 is wrong because 3000 × 0.290 = 870 uses the estimate from 200 spins rather than the more reliable 2000-spin estimate. Writing 750 is wrong because 3000 × 0.25 = 750 ignores the recorded data completely and simply assumes each of the 4 colours is equally likely. The best estimate is 753 expected green spins.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.