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) 1/4 — There are 4 × 4 = 16 equally likely ordered outcomes for the two dice. The pairs that total 5 are: first dice 1 with second dice 4; first dice 2 with second dice 3; first dice 3 with second dice 2; and first dice 4 with second dice 1 — which is 4 outcomes, so the probability is 4/16 = 1/4. A candidate who answers 1/8 has listed only 2 of the four pairs, forgetting that first dice 1 with second dice 4 and first dice 4 with second dice 1 are separate outcomes because the dice are different. A candidate who answers 3/16 has found 3 pairs instead of 4, missing one from the list. A candidate who answers 1/16 has counted only a single pair, such as first dice 2 with second dice 3, and treated the order of the dice as not mattering.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 2/3 — Method: 'in A or in B' means every score that belongs to at least one of the two sets; a score that belongs to both is still only one outcome, so it is listed once. Working: the even scores are 2, 4 and 6; the scores greater than 4 are 5 and 6. Listing the scores that appear in either set gives 2, 4, 5 and 6, with 6 written once. That is 4 of the 6 faces, or 4/6. Answer: the probability is 2/3. The distractors: 5/6 comes from adding the sizes of the two sets, 3 + 2, so that the score 6 is counted in both and appears twice; 1/2 comes from using the even scores alone; 1/6 comes from giving the probability that the score is in both sets, which is the single score 6, rather than in either of them.
- (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.
- (b) 1/4 — Method: the person picked is known to be aged 30 or over, so the sample space is those 140 people; divide the number of them who had been to the cinema by 140. Working: 35 of the 140 people aged 30 or over had been to the cinema, giving 35/140. Dividing the numerator and the denominator by 35 gives 1/4. Answer: the probability is 1/4. The distractors: 7/20 is 35/100, taking the count from the older group but the total from the under 30s, which is reading across the wrong row; 7/48 is 35/240, dividing by everyone surveyed instead of by the age group named; 3/4 is 105/140, the probability that someone aged 30 or over had NOT been to the cinema, the opposite event inside the correct group.
- (a) 195 — The relative frequency from the trial is 52 ÷ 80 = 0.65, and the expected number of point-up landings in 300 drops is 0.65 × 300 = 195. Giving 52 as the answer reuses the original count from the 80-drop trial without scaling it up to 300 drops at all. Misreading 52 out of 80 as 52% and finding 52% of 300 gives 156. Finding the expected number of point-DOWN landings instead of point-up, using the relative frequency 28 ÷ 80 = 0.35, gives 0.35 × 300 = 105.
- (d) 3/20 — The probability of taking a red ball from Bag A is 3/5, and the probability of taking a red ball from Bag B is 1/4. Since the two picks are independent, the probabilities are multiplied: 3/5 × 1/4 = 3/20. A candidate who answers 4/9 has added the numerators and added the denominators, (3+1)/(5+4), instead of multiplying the two fractions. A candidate who answers 17/20 has added the two fractions, 3/5 + 1/4, instead of multiplying them. A candidate who answers 3/25 has misread Bag B as also containing 5 balls, using 1/5 instead of 1/4.
- (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) 0.25 — Method: P(B | A) = P(A and B) ÷ P(A). Working: P(B | A) = 0.15 ÷ 0.6 = 0.25. Answer: 0.25. Watch out: multiplying 0.6 by 0.15 instead of dividing gives 0.09, and subtracting 0.15 from 0.6 gives 0.45 — neither uses the conditional probability formula. Leaving the answer as 0.15 mistakes the probability of A and B happening together for the probability of B once you already know A has happened — those are different quantities.
- (b) 26 — Method: n(G ∪ H) = n(G) + n(H) − n(G ∩ H), taking off the overlap once so the pupils who study both subjects are not counted twice. Working: 19 + 15 − 8 = 26. Answer: 26. Watch out: adding 19 and 15 without taking off the overlap gives 34, which counts the 8 pupils who study both subjects twice. Taking the 8 off both totals before adding, 19 − 8 + 15 − 8 = 18, counts only the pupils who study exactly one of the two subjects and leaves out the 8 who study both. And writing down 11, which is 19 − 8, gives the number who study geography only, not the number who study geography or history or both.
- (c) 325 — Method: first find the relative frequency of NOT landing on red from the 200 spins, then scale that up to 500 spins. Working: non-red results = 50 + 80 = 130, out of 200 spins, so P(not red) = 130 ÷ 200 = 0.65. Expected non-red results in 500 spins = 500 × 0.65 = 325. Answer: 325. Watch out: writing down 175 finds the expected number of RED results instead, 70 ÷ 200 × 500 = 175, answering the opposite of what was asked. Writing down 250 assumes landing red or not landing red must be a fair 50-50 split, but the spinner is biased and the actual results do not split evenly. And writing down 130 stops after finding how many of the 200 spins were non-red and forgets to scale that figure up to the 500 spins asked for.
- (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.
- (a) 50 — To find the number of shots needed for an expected 12 hits, divide the number of hits wanted by the probability of a hit: 12 ÷ 0.24 = 50. Multiplying the number of hits by the probability instead of dividing gives 12 × 0.24 = 2.88, which rounds to 3 shots. Rounding 0.24 to 0.25 before dividing gives 12 ÷ 0.25 = 48. Using the probability of missing, 1 − 0.24 = 0.76, instead of the probability of hitting, gives 12 ÷ 0.76 = 15.79, which rounds to 16.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.