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) 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.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 1/36 — Method: the two dice do not affect each other, so the probability that both results happen is the product of the two separate probabilities. Working: a 1 on the red dice has probability 1/6 and a 2 on the blue dice has probability 1/6. Multiplying gives 1 × 1 = 1 on the top and 6 × 6 = 36 on the bottom. Answer: the probability is 1/36. The distractors: 1/18 comes from allowing either order, counting a 2 on the red dice with a 1 on the blue dice as well, although the stem names which dice shows which score; 1/3 comes from adding 1/6 and 1/6 instead of multiplying; 1/6 comes from giving the probability for one dice only and treating the other as making no difference.
- (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.
- (c) 80 — Since 180 calls are 0.75 of all the technical support calls, the technical support total is 180 ÷ 0.75 = 240. The billing calls make up the rest of the 320 calls, so 320 − 240 = 80. Choosing 240 comes from stopping after finding the technical support total and forgetting the question asks for the billing calls, which are the rest. Choosing 185 comes from multiplying 180 × 0.75 = 135 instead of dividing, then working out 320 − 135 = 185. Choosing 140 comes from using 180 directly as the whole technical support total, ignoring the probability altogether, then working out 320 − 180 = 140.
- (c) £3.10 — Aisha's tickets cost 8 × 50p = £4.00. Her expected winnings are (8/400) × £45 = £0.90, since she holds 8 of the 400 tickets. Her expected loss is the cost minus the expected winnings: £4.00 − £0.90 = £3.10. Writing £4.00 is wrong because it is only the cost of her tickets, with no account taken of the expected winnings she might get back. Writing £0.90 is wrong because that is her expected WINNINGS, not her loss — the cost has not been subtracted. Writing £3.89 is wrong because it uses 1 ticket instead of her actual 8 tickets when working out the expected winnings: (1/400) × £45 = £0.1125, giving £4.00 − £0.11 = £3.89. Aisha should expect to lose £3.10.
- (a) 5/8 — Winning, near-miss and losing are exhaustive, so the three probabilities sum to 1. Writing 1/4 as 2/8 so every fraction has the same denominator, 1 − 1/8 − 2/8 = 8/8 − 1/8 − 2/8 = 5/8. Subtracting only the winning probability and forgetting the near-miss probability gives 1 − 1/8 = 7/8. Subtracting only the near-miss probability and forgetting the winning probability gives 1 − 1/4 = 3/4. Adding the two given probabilities and stopping there gives 1/8 + 2/8 = 3/8, the probability that a ticket is winning or a near-miss, not the probability that it is losing.
- (d) No, because 3/8 + 5/12 + 1/6 = 23/24 — Using a common denominator of 24: 3/8 = 9/24, 5/12 = 10/24 and 1/6 = 4/24. Adding these numerators gives 9 + 10 + 4 = 23, so the three probabilities sum to 23/24, which is less than 1 — Zara is not correct. Adding the original numerators (3 + 5 + 1 = 9) over a denominator of 12 instead of converting each fraction properly gives 9/12 = 3/4, still less than 1 but the wrong fraction. Converting 1/6 to 5/24 instead of 4/24 (using the wrong scaling) makes the total 9/24 + 10/24 + 5/24 = 24/24 = 1, wrongly suggesting the probabilities are valid. Judging validity from the fact that each individual fraction lies between 0 and 1 ignores that an exhaustive set must sum to exactly 1, not merely contain valid individual values.
- (d) 19/30 — Exactly one means only fiction or only non-fiction, not both: 21 + 17 = 38 out of the 60 readers, which simplifies to 19/30. Including the 14 who read both as well gives 21 + 17 + 14 = 52, so 52/60 = 13/15 — that is at least one, not exactly one. Using only the both-count, 14, as the numerator gives 14/60 = 7/30, the probability of reading both, not exactly one. Using 52, the number who read at least one type, as the denominator instead of the full 60 readers surveyed gives 38/52 = 19/26.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 4 — Method: list the elements of each set in full, then find which elements appear in both lists — that is A ∩ B. Working: factors of 12 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12}. Factors of 18 = {1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18}. The elements in both lists are 1, 2, 3 and 6, so A ∩ B = {1, 2, 3, 6} and n(A ∩ B) = 4. Answer: 4. Watch out: writing down 6 gives n(A), the size of the factors-of-12 list on its own, not the size of the overlap. Writing down 8 comes from counting every element that appears in EITHER list, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 18 — that is the union, a different set from the intersection. And writing down 3 misses that 1 is a factor of both 12 and 18, and so belongs in A ∩ B alongside 2, 3 and 6.
- (b) £0.30 profit for the stall — The stall keeps the £1.50 entry fee whatever happens, and expects to pay out prize × probability of winning = £6 × 0.2 = £1.20 on average. So its expected profit per game is £1.50 − £1.20 = £0.30. Reporting the expected pay-out of £1.20 itself as the profit forgets that the stall also keeps the entry fee. Assuming the player always wins gives an expected cost of £6 − £1.50 = £4.50, treated as a loss for the stall. Using the probability of NOT winning, 0.8, to find the expected pay-out gives £6 × 0.8 = £4.80, and £1.50 − £4.80 = −£3.30, a £3.30 loss.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.