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) 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) 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.
- (a) 0.368 — Combining both samples, the spinner landed on red 34 + 58 = 92 times out of a total of 85 + 165 = 250 spins, so the best estimate of the probability is 92/250 = 0.368. Writing 0.400 is wrong because it uses only the first sample, 34/85 = 0.400, ignoring the extra 165 spins recorded afterwards. Writing 0.352 is wrong because it uses only the second sample, 58/165 = 0.352 (to 3 decimal places), ignoring the first 85 spins. Writing 0.376 is wrong because it averages the two separate estimates, (0.400 + 0.352) ÷ 2 = 0.376, instead of combining the actual numbers of reds and spins across both samples. The best estimate of the probability that the spinner lands on red, using all 250 spins, is 0.368.
- (b) Organiser favoured — expected pay-out is under £1 — The expected pay-out per game is the prize times the probability of winning: £4 × 1/5 = £0.80. The expected income per game is the £1 entry fee, which the organiser collects regardless of the result. Since £0.80 is less than £1, the game favours the organiser, because the expected pay-out is under £1. The claim that the game favours the player, because the pay-out is over £1, is wrong on both counts — the pay-out is not over £1, and it is the organiser who benefits. The claim that the organiser is favoured because the pay-out is over £1 reaches the right side but the wrong reason: £0.80 is under £1, not over it. The claim that the two expected amounts are equal is also wrong: £0.80 and £1 are different amounts, so the game is not fair to both sides.
- (b) 2/11 — Method: restrict the 36 equally likely outcomes to those where at least one die shows a 5, then find what fraction of THOSE give a total of 8. Working: outcomes with at least one 5: (5, 1), (5, 2), (5, 3), (5, 4), (5, 5), (5, 6), (1, 5), (2, 5), (3, 5), (4, 5), (6, 5) — 11 outcomes. Among these, the total is 8 for (5, 3) and (3, 5) — 2 outcomes. P(total 8 | at least one 5) = 2/11. Answer: 2/11. Watch out: 5/36 is P(total 8) over the full 36 outcomes — it ignores that you already know one die shows a 5. Treating the condition as 'the first die shows a 5' instead of 'at least one die shows a 5' restricts you to only 6 outcomes and misses the (3, 5) case, giving 1/6. And counting only (5, 3) but not its reverse (3, 5) inside the correct 11-outcome list gives 1/11 instead of 2/11.
- (d) 5/18 — Method: list every ordered pair of dice scores whose difference is 1, then divide by the 36 equally likely pairs. Working: the pairs with a difference of 1 are (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 3), (3, 2), (3, 4), (4, 3), (4, 5), (5, 4), (5, 6) and (6, 5), which is 10 pairs out of 36, cancelling down to 5/18. Answer: 5/18. Watch out: writing down 5/36 lists only the 5 pairs going up, (1, 2), (2, 3), (3, 4), (4, 5) and (5, 6), and misses that each one has a matching pair the other way round, such as (2, 1) — the two dice are different objects, and order matters, so each of those 5 gaps counts twice. Writing down 1/6 treats the six possible differences, 0 to 5, as equally likely and picks 1 out of 6 of them, but a difference of 1 is reached by far more pairs of scores than a difference of 5 is, so the six differences are not equally likely. And writing down 1/4 comes from adding the two dice's outcome counts instead of multiplying them, 6 + 6 = 12, and grouping the six scores into just three non-overlapping pairs one apart, {1, 2}, {3, 4} and {5, 6}, giving 3 out of that wrong pool of 12.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 1/3 — Method: for two independent spinners, multiply the probability of each separate outcome, but first work out each spinner's own probability correctly, using how many of its equal sections actually carry that result. Working: Spinner A has 2 even numbers, 2 and 4, out of 4 sections, so P(even) = 2/4 = 1/2. Spinner B has 2 red sections out of 3, so P(red) = 2/3. Multiplying gives 1/2 × 2/3, which cancels down to 1/3. Answer: 1/3. Watch out: writing down 1/4 treats Spinner B's two colours as equally likely and uses 1/2 for red, when in fact 2 of its 3 sections are red — the sections are not split evenly between the two colours. Writing down 1/6 undercounts Spinner A's even numbers as just one out of four instead of two. And writing down 5/6 applies the 'at least one' formula, P(A) + P(B) − P(A)×P(B), which answers a different question about EITHER spinner landing the right way, not both together.
- (d) 21 — Method: 'yoga only' means yoga but not pilates, so subtract the number who do both from the total who do yoga. Working: 32 − 11 = 21. Answer: 21. Watch out: writing down 32, the total who do yoga, answers 'how many do yoga' rather than 'how many do yoga only' — it still includes the 11 who also do pilates. Adding the overlap instead of subtracting it, 32 + 11 = 43, moves in the wrong direction entirely. And writing down 11 gives the number who do both activities, which is the opposite of yoga only.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 0.15 — Method: for two independent events, multiply along the branches of the tree to find the probability of both outcomes happening together. Working: P(red and heads) = P(red) × P(heads) = 0.3 × 0.5 = 0.15. Answer: 0.15. Watch out: adding the two probabilities, 0.3 + 0.5 = 0.8, does not give the probability of both — probabilities along one path of a tree are multiplied, not added. Writing down 0.5 ignores the spinner altogether and gives only the coin's probability. And writing down 0.65 is the probability of red OR heads, which is 0.3 + 0.5 − 0.15 = 0.65, a different question from the one asked here.
- (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.
- (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.