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) 1/56 — Method: for draws without replacement, multiply a chain of three fractions where both the numerator (reds remaining) and the denominator (counters remaining) fall by one after each draw. Working: P(all three red) = 3/8 × 2/7 × 1/6 = 6/336 = 1/56. Answer: 1/56. Watch out: using 3/8 for all three draws (27/512) treats the counters as if they were replaced each time. Reducing only the numerator each draw (3/8 × 2/8 × 1/8) forgets that the total number of counters left in the bag also falls. And reducing only the denominator while keeping the numerator at 3 each time (3/8 × 3/7 × 3/6) forgets that a red counter has actually left the bag.
- (a) 0.09 — Method: two independent events that must both happen are combined by multiplying their probabilities. Working: the same probability 0.3 applies to each day, so the calculation is 0.3 × 0.3. Written as fractions this is 3/10 × 3/10 = 9/100. Answer: the probability is 0.09. The distractors: 0.6 comes from adding 0.3 and 0.3 instead of multiplying them; 0.3 comes from quoting the single-day probability, as though the second day added no further condition; 0.9 comes from multiplying 3 by 3 correctly but keeping only one decimal place in the product instead of two.
- (b) 0.55 — Method: it is easier to find the probability that Ffion wins NEITHER stage, then subtract that from 1. Working: P(lose stage 1) = 1 − 0.4 = 0.6, and P(lose stage 2) = 1 − 0.25 = 0.75. P(neither) = 0.6 × 0.75 = 0.45. P(at least one) = 1 − 0.45 = 0.55. Answer: 0.55. Watch out: adding the two win probabilities, 0.4 + 0.25 = 0.65, treats winning both as impossible and overcounts — that is not how independent probabilities combine. Multiplying the two win probabilities, 0.4 × 0.25 = 0.1, gives the probability of winning BOTH stages, not at least one. And stopping at 0.45, the probability of winning neither stage, forgets the final step of subtracting from 1.
- (a) 0.2 — Method: for independent events, the probability that both happen is the product of the two probabilities. Working: the first set is green with probability 0.4 and the second with probability 0.5, so the calculation is 0.4 × 0.5. Since 4 × 5 = 20 and the two factors carry one decimal place each, the product carries two. Answer: the probability is 0.2. The distractors: 0.9 comes from adding 0.4 and 0.5 instead of multiplying them; 0.45 comes from averaging the two probabilities; 0.1 comes from subtracting 0.4 from 0.5, treating the question as a difference.
- (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.
- (c) 2/15 — Method: for independent events, the probability that both happen is the product of the two probabilities. Working: the calculation is 2/5 × 1/3. Multiplying fractions gives 2 × 1 = 2 on the top and 5 × 3 = 15 on the bottom. Answer: the probability is 2/15. The distractors: 11/15 comes from adding the two probabilities, 6/15 + 5/15, instead of multiplying them; 3/8 comes from adding the numerators and the denominators separately; 1/15 comes from subtracting one probability from the other, 6/15 − 5/15.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) Game B, by £8 — Game A's expected total is 40 × 0.2 × £5 = £40. Game B's expected total is 40 × 0.1 × £12 = £48. Game B is higher, by £48 − £40 = £8. Writing 'Game A, by £8' is wrong because it has the right difference but the wrong game — Game A's total (£40) is actually LOWER than Game B's, not higher. Writing 'Game B, by £48' is wrong because £48 is Game B's whole expected total, not the DIFFERENCE between the two games. Writing 'Game A, by £40' is wrong in the same way, using Game A's whole total as if it were the margin, and naming the wrong game as the winner. Game B gives the higher expected total, by £8.
- (a) 0.16 — The probability that Kofi fails a single attempt is 1 − 0.6 = 0.4. Since the attempts are independent, the probability he fails both is 0.4 × 0.4 = 0.16. Choosing 0.36 comes from squaring the probability of PASSING instead, 0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36, which is the probability of passing both attempts, not failing both. Choosing 0.4 comes from giving the probability of failing just one attempt, forgetting to combine two attempts. Choosing 0.24 comes from multiplying the fail probability by the pass probability, 0.4 × 0.6 = 0.24, mixing up passing and failing between the two attempts.
- (d) 1/12 — Method: list the full possibility space of sandwich-and-drink pairs, then divide the one matching pair by the size of the whole space. Working: there are 3 × 4 = 12 equally likely sandwich-and-drink pairs, and exactly one of them is egg and water. Answer: 1/12. Watch out: writing down 1/7 comes from adding the two counts, 3 + 4 = 7, instead of multiplying them to build the possibility space. Writing down 1/3 uses only the chance of choosing egg out of 3 sandwiches and ignores the drink altogether. And writing down 1/4 uses only the chance of choosing water out of 4 drinks and ignores the sandwich altogether.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 57/100 — Pooling both trials: total heads = 24 + 33 = 57, total flips = 40 + 60 = 100, so the combined relative frequency is 57/100, which is already in its simplest form since 57 and 100 share no common factor. Averaging the two separate relative frequencies instead, (24/40 + 33/60) ÷ 2 = (0.6 + 0.55) ÷ 2 = 0.575 = 23/40, treats the two trials as equally weighted even though Ben made more flips, which is not correct. Using only Leah's data gives 24/40 = 3/5. Using only Ben's data gives 33/60 = 11/20.
- (d) 136 — 15% of 160 = 0.15 × 160 = 24 patients reported side effects, so 160 − 24 = 136 did not. Stopping after finding the number who reported side effects, 24, answers the wrong question — it is not the number who did NOT report them. Misreading '15%' as a raw count of 15 patients, rather than a percentage, gives 160 − 15 = 145. Subtracting 15% of 160 twice, 160 − 24 − 24 = 112, double-counts the side-effect group.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.