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
- (a) 3,860 — The probability a bulb works correctly is the complement of being defective: 1 − 0.035 = 0.965. Expected number working correctly = 0.965 × 4,000 = 3,860. Using the probability of being defective instead of its complement gives 4,000 × 0.035 = 140, the expected number of DEFECTIVE bulbs, not working ones. Shifting the decimal point in the complement, using 0.0965 instead of 0.965, gives 4,000 × 0.0965 = 386. Assuming every bulb works, ignoring the 0.035 probability altogether, gives the full batch of 4,000.
- (c) 0.2 — Let P(green) = x, so P(blue) = 2x. Red, blue, green and yellow are exhaustive: 0.05 + 0.35 + x + 2x = 1, so 0.4 + 3x = 1, giving 3x = 0.6 and x = 0.2. So P(green) = 0.2. Splitting the remaining 0.6 evenly between blue and green, ignoring the 2:1 ratio, gives 0.3. Working out x correctly but then reporting 2x, the probability of blue, gives 0.4. Stopping after finding that blue and green together account for 0.6, without dividing by the three equal shares of x, gives 0.6.
- (d) 12/17 — Method: the person picked is known to have passed, so the sample space is everyone who passed; divide the course takers who passed by that total. Working: 120 course takers and 50 others passed, so 170 people passed. The course takers who passed give 120/170, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 10 gives 12/17. Answer: the probability is 12/17. The distractors: 4/5 is 120/150, the probability that someone passed given that they took the course, which reverses the condition and the event; 12/25 is 120/250, dividing by everyone who sat the test rather than by the 170 who passed; 17/25 is 170/250, the probability that a person picked from everyone sitting the test passed, which answers a different question altogether.
- (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.
- (d) 1/8 — The multiples of 3 from 1 to 8 are 3 and 6, so the probability of that event is 2/8, which simplifies to 1/4. The probability of the coin landing on heads is 1/2. Since the spin and the toss are independent, multiply the two probabilities: 1/4 × 1/2 = 1/8. A candidate who answers 1/4 has considered only the spinner and forgotten to combine it with the coin toss. A candidate who answers 1/2 has considered only the coin and forgotten the spinner condition entirely. A candidate who answers 1/16 has counted only one number, 6, as a multiple of 3 instead of two, giving 1/8 × 1/2.
- (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.
- (a) unlikely — 3/8 = 3 ÷ 8 = 0.375, which is between 0 and 0.5, so the probability is best described as unlikely. Rounding 3/8 loosely to 'about a half' without converting it properly leads to evens, which is wrong since 0.375 is noticeably below 0.5. Reading 3/8 as the complement and using 1 − 3/8 = 5/8 = 0.625 instead gives likely, but the question asks about the probability of 3/8 itself, not its complement. Flipping the fraction to 8/3 ≈ 2.67, which is impossible for a probability, and rounding it towards the top of the scale gives certain.
- (a) 1/6 — Method: write the results of the two dice as ordered pairs, count the pairs whose scores add to the total asked for, divide by the number of ordered pairs there are, then cancel the fraction down. Working: there are 6 × 6 = 36 equally likely ordered pairs. The pairs whose scores add to 7 are (1, 6), (2, 5), (3, 4), (4, 3), (5, 2) and (6, 1), which is 6 pairs, so the probability is 6/36. Dividing the top and the bottom by 6 gives 1/6. Answer: the probability is 1/6. The distractors: 7/36 comes from taking the number of favourable pairs to be 7 because 7 is the total asked for, confusing the size of a total with the number of ways of making it; 1/7 comes from using the 21 different combinations of two scores as the equally likely results, finding the 3 combinations 1 and 6, 2 and 5, 3 and 4, and cancelling 3/21; 6/11 comes from counting the 6 favourable pairs correctly but dividing by the 11 possible totals from 2 to 12 rather than by the 36 pairs.
- (b) 4 — With 150 rolls and probability 1/6 for each number, the expected count is 150 ÷ 6 = 25. Comparing each actual count with 25: 1 is 22 (3 below), 2 is 27 (2 above), 3 is 24 (1 below), 4 is 34 (9 above), 5 is 21 (4 below) and 6 is 22 (3 below). Number 4 is furthest above its expected count, so it is the most over-represented. Number 2 is also above its expected count, but by only 2, far less than 4's 9. Number 3's count of 24 is below the expected 25, so it is under-represented, not over. Number 6's count of 22 is also below the expected 25, so it too is under-represented.
- (a) 70 — Method: two linked steps. Find the expected number of billing calls first, then take the 35% of those, because the 35% is quoted for billing calls only. Working: 40% of 500 is 200 billing calls. 35% of 200 is 70 calls. Answer: you would expect 70 calls. The distractors: 200 stops after the first step and gives the billing calls, forgetting that only some of them are dealt with quickly; 175 is 35% of 500, applying the quick response rate to every call the centre takes rather than to the billing calls only; 375 comes from adding 40% and 35% to get 75% and taking 75% of 500, which treats two stages of one journey as separate outcomes to be added.
- (d) 3400 — Combining all three greenhouses gives 200 + 150 + 250 = 600 seeds planted in total, and 172 + 126 + 212 = 510 germinated, so the combined estimate of the germination probability is 510/600 = 0.85. Out of a new batch of 4000 seeds, the expected number to germinate is 4000 × 0.85 = 3400. Writing 3440 is wrong because it uses only Greenhouse 1's rate, 172/200 = 0.86, instead of the combined rate from all three: 4000 × 0.86 = 3440. Writing 3360 is wrong because it uses only Greenhouse 2's rate, 126/150 = 0.84: 4000 × 0.84 = 3360. Writing 510 is wrong because that is the total number that germinated in the ORIGINAL trial, not scaled up to the new batch of 4000 seeds at all. The best estimate is 3400 seeds.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.