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
- (d) 12/25 — The group holds 40 of the 250 tickets, so for any one prize the probability the group wins it is 40/250 = 4/25. There are 3 prizes and the group has the same chance at each one, so the expected number won is 3 × 4/25 = 12/25. Writing 4/25 is wrong because it is the chance of winning just ONE prize, without multiplying by the 3 prizes available. Writing 4/75 is wrong because it divides by the 3 prizes instead of multiplying (4/25 ÷ 3 = 4/75), which would mean the group did worse the more prizes were on offer. Writing 64/15625 is wrong because it multiplies the single-prize probability by itself three times, (4/25)³, as though all three prizes had to be won together, instead of adding up the expected number across the three separate prizes. The expected number of prizes won by the group is 12/25.
- (b) 3 pupils — Method: an expected frequency is the probability multiplied by the number of trials, so multiply the probability by the number of pupils. Working: 30 × 1/10 means finding one tenth of 30, and 30 ÷ 10 = 3. Answer: 3 pupils would be expected to have a nut allergy. The distractors: 27 pupils comes from working out how many are expected NOT to have the allergy, 30 − 3, instead of how many are; 10 pupils comes from reading the 10 in the fraction 1/10 as the number of pupils; 1 pupil comes from reading the numerator of the fraction as the expected number.
- (a) 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households — Method: work out the probability inside the restricted group of garden owners, then work out the probability across the whole survey, and compare the two. Working: 54 of the 120 households with a garden own a dog, so the conditional probability is 54 divided by 120, which is 0.45. Across the whole survey 80 of the 200 households own a dog, which is 0.4. Since 0.45 is not 0.4, having a garden changes the chance of owning a dog and the two events are not independent. Answer: 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households. The distractors: 0.27 is 54/200, dividing the households with both by the whole survey instead of by the 120 with a garden; 0.675 is 54/80, the probability that a household has a garden given that it owns a dog, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round; 0.4 is 80/200, the probability of owning a dog with the garden information never used, which is why that route also reports no difference.
- (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) 0.15 — Let P(water) = x, so P(coffee) = 3x. The four outcomes are exhaustive: 0.36 + 0.04 + x + 3x = 1, so 0.4 + 4x = 1, giving 4x = 0.6 and x = 0.15. So P(water) = 0.15. Reporting 3x, the coffee probability, instead of water gives 0.45. Splitting the remaining 0.6 evenly between coffee and water, ignoring the 3:1 ratio, gives 0.30. Stopping once the remaining probability 0.6 is found, without dividing by the four equal shares, gives 0.60.
- (a) 4/9 — There are 3 × 6 = 18 equally likely outcomes. The product is a multiple of 5 whenever Spinner C shows 5, whatever Spinner D shows, which is 6 outcomes, or whenever Spinner D shows 5 and Spinner C shows 2 or 3, which is 2 more outcomes. This gives 6 + 2 = 8 outcomes, so the probability is 8/18 = 4/9. Choosing 1/3 comes from only counting the 6 outcomes where Spinner C shows 5 and forgetting the 2 outcomes where Spinner D shows 5 instead. Choosing 1/9 comes from only counting the 2 outcomes where Spinner D shows 5 and forgetting the 6 outcomes where Spinner C shows 5. Choosing 1/2 comes from counting 9 outcomes instead of 8, by listing the case where Spinner C shows 5 and Spinner D shows 5 twice over.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 102 — Method: turn the past record into a relative frequency, then use it as an estimate of the probability of rain and multiply by the number of days being predicted for. Working: relative frequency of rain = 70 ÷ 250 = 0.28. Expected rainy days in 365 days = 365 × 0.28 = 102.2, which rounds to about 102 days. Answer: about 102 days. Watch out: writing down 48 swaps which number is the sample and which is the target, working out 70 ÷ 365 × 250 instead of 70 ÷ 250 × 365. Writing down 70 just repeats the original count of rainy days without scaling it up to the new, longer period at all. And writing down 110 comes from rounding the relative frequency to 0.3 before multiplying, 365 × 0.3 = 109.5, when 70 ÷ 250 is exactly 0.28 and needs no rounding at all.
- (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.
- (d) 1/5 — Method: list the pairs systematically, work out each total, then count the pairs that meet the condition and compare that count with the length of the list. Working: the pairs and their totals are 1 and 2 giving 3, 1 and 3 giving 4, 1 and 4 giving 5, 1 and 5 giving 6, 2 and 3 giving 5, 2 and 4 giving 6, 2 and 5 giving 7, 3 and 4 giving 7, 3 and 5 giving 8, and 4 and 5 giving 9. That is 10 pairs, of which 2 have a total of more than 7. Answer: the probability is 1/5. The distractors: 2/5 comes from counting the totals of exactly 7 as well, reading 'more than 7' as '7 or more'; 1/10 comes from finding only the pair 4 and 5 and missing that 3 and 5 also beat 7; 4/5 comes from counting the pairs on the wrong side of the condition, the 8 pairs whose total is 7 or less.
- (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.
- (c) 0.31 — Method: a late bus can be reached along two paths of the tree. Multiply along each path, then add the paths that end in a late bus. Working: the rain path gives 0.3 × 0.8 = 0.24. No rain has probability 1 − 0.3 = 0.7, so the second path gives 0.7 × 0.1 = 0.07. Adding the two paths gives 0.24 + 0.07. Answer: the probability is 0.31. The distractors: 0.9 comes from adding the two branch probabilities 0.8 and 0.1 without first weighting them by how often it rains; 0.24 comes from following the rain path only and ignoring that the bus can also be late when it is dry; 0.27 comes from using 0.3 at the start of both paths, so that the no-rain path is given 0.3 × 0.1 instead of 0.7 × 0.1.
- (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.
- (c) 1/2 — Method: restrict to the students who did NOT bring a packed lunch, then find what fraction of that group are girls. Girls without lunch = 42 − 24 = 18. Boys = 70 − 42 = 28, so boys without lunch = 28 − 10 = 18. Total without lunch = 18 + 18 = 36. Working: P(girl | no lunch) = 18 ÷ 36 = 1/2. Answer: 1/2. Watch out: dividing 18 by 42 (the total number of girls) instead of by 36 finds P(no lunch | girl), the reverse conditional. Dividing by 70 (the whole trip) ignores that you already know the student did not bring a lunch. And using the 'brought a lunch' numbers (24 out of 34) answers the question for the wrong group entirely — you were asked about the students who did NOT bring one.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.