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) 3/8 — Method: write out every result of the three coins as a string of three letters, H for heads and T for tails, count the results that match the description and divide by how many results the list holds. Working: each coin lands two ways and no coin affects another, so the list holds 2 × 2 × 2 = 8 equally likely results. Exactly two heads means one coin lands on tails and the other two on heads, so the results are HHT, HTH and THH — 3 of the 8. Answer: the probability is 3/8. The distractors: 4/8 comes from reading 'exactly two heads' as 'at least two heads' and counting HHH as well; 2/8 comes from a list made without a system, in which HHT and THH are written down and HTH, the result with the tail between the two heads, is missed; 6/8 comes from counting 3 × 2 = 6 ways of picking which two of the three coins show heads, which counts every pair of coins twice, once in each order.
- (c) The green bag (7/24) — Method: fractions can only be ordered once they share a denominator, so rewrite all four over the lowest common denominator and compare the numerators. Working: the lowest common denominator of 12, 8, 24 and 3 is 24, and scaling gives 5/12 = 10/24, 3/8 = 9/24, 7/24 stays as it is, and 1/3 = 8/24; the numerators are then 10, 9, 7 and 8. Answer: the smallest numerator is 7, so the green bag, with 7/24, is the least likely and sits furthest to the left on the 0 to 1 scale. The distractors: the red bag (5/12) comes from finding the largest of the four probabilities instead of the smallest; the blue bag (3/8) comes from scaling 3/8 by changing only the denominator to 24, which turns it into 3/24 and makes it look the smallest; the yellow bag (1/3) comes from comparing numerators alone and assuming the fraction with the numerator 1 must be the smallest.
- (b) 0.0309 — Method: P(both defective | at least one defective) = P(both defective) ÷ P(at least one defective). Find each using independence: P(both) = 0.06², P(at least one) = 1 − P(neither) = 1 − 0.94². Working: P(both) = 0.06² = 0.0036. P(neither) = 0.94² = 0.8836, so P(at least one) = 1 − 0.8836 = 0.1164. P(both | at least one) = 0.0036 ÷ 0.1164 = 0.0309 (3 s.f.). Answer: 0.0309. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.0036 gives P(both defective) itself, not the probability once you already know at least one is defective — you still need to divide by P(at least one defective). Giving 0.0600 answers with the single-component defect rate, ignoring the condition altogether. And 0.5000 assumes that 'at least one' makes the outcomes 'exactly one defective' and 'both defective' equally likely, which is not how these probabilities combine.
- (b) 500 — Method: when a dice is known to be fair, the theoretical probability is the best thing to work from, and the more trials there are the closer the results tend to it. Working: for a fair dice the probability of a six is 1/6, so the expected number of sixes in 3000 rolls is 3000 × 1 ÷ 6 = 500. The class experiment gave a relative frequency of 14/60, but 60 trials is far too few to overturn a known theoretical value, and the school's 3000 rolls will tend towards 1/6 in any case. Answer: about 500 sixes. The distractors: 700 comes from using the class relative frequency instead of the theory, 3000 × 14 ÷ 60 = 700; 600 comes from splitting the difference between the two, since 1/6 is about 0.167 and 14/60 is about 0.233, whose mean is 0.2, and 3000 × 0.2 = 600; 2500 uses 5/6 instead of 1/6 and counts the rolls expected not to be a six.
- (c) 0.512 — Method: independent events that must all happen are combined by multiplying their probabilities. Working: the first two questions give 0.8 × 0.8 = 0.64. Bringing in the third gives 0.64 × 0.8, and since 64 × 8 = 512 with three decimal places in the product, this is 0.512. Answer: the probability is 0.512. The distractors: 0.64 comes from multiplying only two of the three probabilities and stopping; 0.8 comes from reading 'independent' as meaning the probability never changes and writing down the single-question figure; 0.0512 comes from a place-value slip in the last multiplication, counting four decimal places instead of three.
- (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) 12/25 — P(red then blue) = 4/10 × 6/10 = 24/100. P(blue then red) is the same, 6/10 × 4/10 = 24/100. Since either order counts as different colours, add them: 24/100 + 24/100 = 48/100 = 12/25. Working out only one order, red-then-blue, and forgetting blue-then-red, gives 24/100 = 6/25. Working out the probability that the two counters are the SAME colour instead — 4/10 × 4/10 + 6/10 × 6/10 = 16/100 + 36/100 = 52/100 = 13/25 — answers a different question. Using 6/9 for the second draw, as if the first counter were not replaced, gives 2 × (4/10 × 6/9) = 48/90 = 8/15.
- (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.
- (c) 3/20 — Method: the second fraction is quoted for the perennials only, so it is a conditional probability and the two fractions multiply. Working: the probability that a plant is a perennial is 3/5, and given that it is a perennial the probability that it is in flower is 1/4. Multiplying gives 3 × 1 over 5 × 4, which is 3/20. Answer: the probability is 3/20. The distractors: 17/20 comes from adding the fractions, 12/20 plus 5/20, instead of multiplying, which would be right only for two outcomes that cannot both happen; 4/9 comes from adding the numerators and the denominators separately, the classic 3 + 1 over 5 + 4; 1/4 quotes the flowering fraction on its own, as though every plant in the garden centre were a perennial, so the 3/5 is never used.
- (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) 70 — Saloon, estate and hatchback are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of a hatchback is 1 − 0.28 − 0.37 = 0.35. The number of hatchbacks is 0.35 × 200 = 70. Treating the SUM of the other two probabilities, 0.28 + 0.37 = 0.65, as the probability of a hatchback instead of its complement gives 0.65 × 200 = 130. Multiplying the correct probability, 0.35, by 100 instead of the 200 cars actually surveyed gives 35. Averaging the two given probabilities, (0.28 + 0.37) ÷ 2 = 0.325, instead of subtracting them from 1, and then multiplying by 200 gives 65.
- (a) 4/15 — Method: first find how many pupils travel only by car, then write that as a fraction of the 60 pupils surveyed. Working: pupils who walk or cycle or both = 32 + 24 − 12 = 44. Only by car = 60 − 44 = 16. P(only by car) = 16/60 = 4/15. Answer: 4/15. Watch out: writing down 1/5 takes the overlap of 12 pupils on its own, 12/60, mistaking the group who do both for the group who travel only by car. Writing down 4/5 comes from 60 − 12 = 48, subtracting only the overlap from the total instead of the whole walk-or-cycle count, so cyclists and walkers who are not in the overlap are wrongly swept into the only-car group. And writing down 7/15 comes from 60 − 32 = 28, subtracting the walkers alone and forgetting the cyclists altogether.
- (c) 9/28 — Method: two linked steps. Total everyone whose test is positive, since the person picked is known to be one of them, then divide the positive tests that belong to people with the condition by that total. Working: 45 positive tests come from people who have the condition and 95 come from people who do not, so 140 tests are positive. The people with the condition give 45/140, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 5 gives 9/28. Answer: the probability is 9/28. The distractors: 9/10 is 45/50, the probability of a positive test given that the person has the condition, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and is the figure a candidate quotes when the two are confused; 9/200 is 45/1000, dividing by everyone tested rather than by the 140 who tested positive; 1/20 is 50/1000, the probability that a person has the condition before the test result is used at all.
- (b) 6/25 — The probability of winning on any one spin is 2/5, and the probability of losing on any one spin is 3/5. Since the spins are independent, multiply the probability of winning on the first spin by the probability of losing on the second spin: 2/5 × 3/5 = 6/25. A candidate who answers 4/25 has used the winning probability for both spins, 2/5 × 2/5. A candidate who answers 9/25 has used the losing probability for both spins, 3/5 × 3/5. A candidate who answers 3/10 has treated the spins as if they were dependent, reducing the second spin's denominator to 4.
- (c) 24 — Silver, bronze and copper cover every counter, so their probabilities sum to 1: P(copper) = 1 − 1/2 − 1/8 = 3/8. Number of copper counters = 3/8 × 64 = 24. Multiplying the silver probability by 64 gives 32, the number of silver counters, not copper. Multiplying the bronze probability by 64 gives 8, the number of bronze counters. Adding the silver and bronze probabilities (1/2 + 1/8 = 5/8) and multiplying by 64 gives 40, the combined number of silver and bronze counters, not the copper count.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.