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) 10 — The number who use the pool or the sauna (or both) is the total minus those who use neither: 70 − 12 = 58. Since pool + sauna double-counts the overlap, n(P ∩ S) = 38 + 30 − 58 = 10. Adding the pool and sauna counts without subtracting the overlap at all gives 38 + 30 = 68, more members than are in the whole gym. Subtracting the sauna count from the union, 58 − 30 = 28, actually finds the number who use ONLY the pool, not both. Reporting the 'neither' count, 12, confuses it with the 'both' region — they describe opposite corners of the diagram.
- (c) 47 — Method: fill the first pair of branches of the frequency tree, then the failures on each branch, then add only the failing end branches. Working: 70% of 200 is 140, so 140 cars were more than 3 years old and 200 − 140 = 60 cars were 3 years old or less. One quarter of the older cars failed: 140 ÷ 4 = 35. The newer branch gives 12 failures. Adding the two failing branches gives 35 + 12 = 47. Answer: 47 of the cars failed the test. The distractors: 35 is the older branch on its own, with the 12 newer failures never added; 62 comes from taking 1 in 4 of all the cars, 200 ÷ 4 = 50, and then adding the 12; 153 is 200 − 47 and counts the cars that passed.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 1/20 — Method: add the counts on the faulty end branches, divide by the total number of items in the experiment, then cancel. Working: the faulty items number 15 + 5 = 20, and 400 items were checked, so the probability is 20/400. Dividing the top and the bottom by 20 gives 1/20. Answer: the probability is 1/20. The distractors: 3/50 is 15/250 and comes from dividing machine A's faults by machine A's output, which is that machine's own fault rate rather than the probability for the whole batch; 1/30 is 5/150 and does the same on machine B's branch; 19/20 is 380/400 and gives the probability that the item picked is not faulty.
- (a) 9/25 — Method: P(badminton | tennis) = n(tennis and badminton) ÷ n(tennis) — restrict to the tennis-players, then find what fraction of them also play badminton. Working: n(tennis and badminton) = 18, n(tennis) = 50, so P(badminton | tennis) = 18/50 = 9/25. Answer: 9/25. Watch out: dividing by 40 (the badminton total) finds P(tennis | badminton) instead of P(badminton | tennis) — the wrong direction. Dividing by 90 (all the members named in the question) ignores that you already know the member plays tennis. And dividing by 72 (50 + 40 − 18, the number who play at least one of the two sports) answers a question about the union, not the condition you were given.
- (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.
- (c) 11/20 — 'Red or white' combines two mutually exclusive events, so add their probabilities: 3/10 = 6/20 and 1/4 = 5/20, giving 6/20 + 5/20 = 11/20. Multiplying the two probabilities instead of adding them, 3/10 × 1/4, gives 3/40, which would be the probability of red and white together, not red or white — and a bead can't be both colours. Subtracting the sum from 1, 1 − 11/20 = 9/20, gives the probability of the bead being black instead of red or white. Converting 1/4 as 4/20 instead of 5/20 (dividing 20 by 4 but forgetting to scale the numerator) gives 6/20 + 4/20 = 1/2.
- (d) 3/10 — Method: list the full possibility space as pairs of coin and spinner results, then count how many pairs satisfy both conditions and divide by the size of the whole space. Working: the coin gives 2 outcomes and the spinner gives 5, so the full space has 2 × 5 = 10 equally likely pairs. The pairs with a tail and an odd number are (T,1), (T,3) and (T,5), which is 3 out of 10. Answer: 3/10. Watch out: writing down 1/2 uses only the coin's own chance of a tail and ignores that the spinner also has to land on an odd number. Writing down 3/5 uses only the spinner's chance of landing on an odd number and ignores the coin altogether. And writing down 1/10 counts just one matching outcome, such as (T,1), instead of all three pairs that satisfy both conditions.
- (b) 41/160 — In total, 27 + 14 = 41 of the 160 employees cycle to work, so the probability is 41/160 (41 and 160 share no common factor, so this is already in its simplest form). Writing 27/160 is wrong because it only counts the full-time cyclists and leaves out the 14 part-time cyclists. Writing 41/90 is wrong because it uses the full-time total (90) as the denominator instead of the whole survey (160). Writing 1/5 is wrong because it only uses the part-time branch, simplifying 14/70 to 1/5 and ignoring the full-time cyclists completely. The probability is 41/160.
- (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.
- (a) 5/12 — Method: a win, a draw and a loss are the only outcomes and no two can happen together, so the three probabilities form an exhaustive set of mutually exclusive events and add to 1; add the two given probabilities, then subtract from 1. Working: 1/4 + 1/3 over the common denominator 12 is 3/12 + 4/12 = 7/12, and 1 − 7/12 = 12/12 − 7/12. Answer: 5/12. The distractors: 7/12 comes from stopping at the probability of a win or a draw and never subtracting from 1; 1/12 comes from subtracting the two given probabilities from each other, 1/3 − 1/4, instead of adding them and taking the total from 1; 5/7 comes from adding 1/4 and 1/3 by adding the numerators and the denominators to get 2/7 and then subtracting that from 1.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.