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) 3/16 — The probability that Priya misses a shot is 1 − 3/4 = 1/4. The two shots are independent, so multiply the probability of scoring the first shot by the probability of missing the second shot: 3/4 × 1/4 = 3/16. Choosing 9/16 comes from using the probability of scoring, 3/4, for both shots instead of switching to the miss probability for the second shot, 3/4 × 3/4 = 9/16, which is the probability that she scores with both shots. Choosing 1/2 comes from subtracting the two probabilities instead of multiplying them, 3/4 − 1/4 = 1/2. Choosing 3/4 comes from giving only the probability that she scores with the first shot, forgetting to combine it with what happens on the second shot.
- (a) 17/32 — Because the counter is replaced, each pick is independent with P(red) = 5/8 and P(blue) = 3/8 every time. Both red has probability 5/8 × 5/8 = 25/64, and both blue has probability 3/8 × 3/8 = 9/64. 'Same colour' means either of these, so add them: 25/64 + 9/64 = 34/64 = 17/32. Giving 25/64 finds only the probability of both counters being red, leaving out both counters being blue, which also counts as the same colour. Giving 15/64 finds the probability of one red and one blue counter in just one of the two possible orders — the opposite of what was asked, and only half of it. Giving 13/28 works out the probabilities as if the counter had NOT been replaced, using 5/8 × 4/7 and 3/8 × 2/7, even though the question states it was put back.
- (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) 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.
- (b) (48/52) × (47/51) — Method: for two deals one after the other with nothing put back, multiply the probability of the first by the probability of the second worked out from the cards that are left. Working: 52 − 4 = 48 cards are not aces, so the first card is not an ace with probability 48/52. One card has now gone and it was not an ace, so 51 cards remain and 47 of them are not aces, giving 47/51. Answer: the probability is (48/52) × (47/51). The distractors: (48/52) × (48/52) comes from leaving the pack at 52 cards for the second deal, which is only true if the first card is replaced; (4/52) × (3/51) comes from working out the probability that both cards ARE aces instead of neither; (4/52) × (4/51) comes from the same misreading with the ace count left at 4 while the total is reduced, adjusting only half of the second fraction.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 1/29 — The probability that Priya's ticket wins is 6/30. Since her ticket is not returned, there are now only 5 winning tickets left out of 29 tickets in total, so the probability that Tom's ticket also wins is 5/29. Multiplying these, 6/30 × 5/29 = 30/870 = 1/29. A candidate who answers 1/25 has treated Priya's ticket as returned, using 6/30 twice. A candidate who answers 1/30 has correctly reduced the winning tickets to 5 for Tom but forgotten to reduce the total number of tickets, using 5/30 instead of 5/29. A candidate who answers 11/59 has added the numerators and added the denominators, (6+5)/(30+29), instead of multiplying.
- (b) £100 — Over 250 games, the expected total winnings are 250 × (1/5) × £12 = £600, since a player wins on 1 of the 5 equally likely sections. The total cost of playing is 250 × £2 = £500. The players' expected profit is the winnings minus the cost: £600 − £500 = £100. Writing £500 is wrong because that is only the total cost of playing, without any winnings included. Writing £600 is wrong because that is only the total expected winnings, without subtracting what was paid to play. Writing £2,500 is wrong because it assumes a win on every single game (250 × £12 = £3,000) instead of using the 1-in-5 probability, then subtracts the cost: £3,000 − £500 = £2,500. The players' expected profit over the 250 games is £100.
- (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.
- (d) 75% — Method: count how many cards are not hearts, write that count over the total number of cards, cancel the fraction down and then turn it into a percentage. Working: 52 − 13 = 39 cards are not hearts, so the probability is 39/52; dividing the numerator and the denominator by 13 gives 3/4, and 3/4 = 0.75, so 0.75 × 100 = 75. Answer: 75%, three quarters of the way along the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: 25% comes from giving the probability that the card is a heart, 13 out of 52, which cancels to 1/4; 50% comes from reading 'not a heart' as 'not a red card' and halving the pack; 39% comes from writing the count of 39 cards straight down as the percentage without comparing it with the 52 cards in the pack.
- (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) 5/12 — The possible totals are 2 to 12. The prime totals are 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11, with 1, 2, 4, 6 and 2 ways to make them, giving 1 + 2 + 4 + 6 + 2 = 15 outcomes out of 36, so the probability is 15/36 = 5/12. Choosing 7/18 comes from forgetting that a total of 2 counts as prime, giving 14/36 = 7/18 instead. Choosing 19/36 comes from wrongly including a total of 9 as a prime number, adding its 4 ways to the correct 15 to get 19/36. Choosing 13/36 comes from forgetting the 2 ways of making a total of 11, giving 13/36 instead of 15/36.
- (b) £100 — Method: find the expected number of wins, turn that into the expected pay out, then compare it with what the games cost. Working: the expected number of wins is 200 × 0.15 = 30. Each win pays £10, so the expected pay out is 30 × 10 = 300 pounds. Playing 200 times at £2 a go costs 200 × 2 = 400 pounds. The expected loss is 400 − 300 = 100 pounds. Answer: Amir should expect to be about £100 down. The distractors: £300 is the expected winnings on their own, with the cost of playing never taken off; £400 is the total cost of playing, with the winnings never taken off; £700 comes from adding the two totals, 400 + 300 = 700, instead of subtracting one from the other.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.