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) 124/125 — The probability that a seed germinates is 1 − 1/5 = 4/5, so the probability that all three seeds fail to germinate is 1/5 × 1/5 × 1/5 = 1/125. The probability that at least one germinates is 1 − 1/125 = 124/125. Choosing 4/5 comes from giving the probability that a single seed germinates, forgetting to combine all three seeds. Choosing 64/125 comes from working out the probability that ALL three seeds germinate, 4/5 × 4/5 × 4/5 = 64/125, instead of at least one. Choosing 12/125 comes from working out the probability that EXACTLY one seed germinates, 3 × 4/5 × 1/5 × 1/5 = 12/125, instead of at least one.
- (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.
- (c) 39.5% — Win, draw and lose are mutually exclusive and exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 100%: 42% + 18.5% = 60.5% is the percentage that wins or draws. 100% − 60.5% = 39.5% is the percentage that neither wins nor draws. Adding 42% and 18.5% and stopping there, 60.5%, is the probability of winning or drawing, not of neither. Subtracting only the 42% from 100% gives 58.0%, ignoring the draw percentage. Subtracting only the 18.5% from 100% gives 81.5%, ignoring the win percentage.
- (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) 3/8 — There are 4 × 6 = 24 equally likely outcomes. The outcomes with no 3 at all have Spinner E showing 1, 2 or 4 and Spinner F showing 1, 2, 4, 5 or 6, giving 3 × 5 = 15 outcomes. So the outcomes with at least one 3 are 24 − 15 = 9, and the probability is 9/24 = 3/8. Choosing 5/12 comes from adding the two individual probabilities of a 3, 1/4 + 1/6, which counts the outcome where both spinners show 3 twice over. Choosing 1/4 comes from only counting the case where Spinner E shows 3, and forgetting the outcomes where Spinner F shows 3 instead. Choosing 5/8 comes from working out the probability of getting no 3 at all, 15/24 = 5/8, and giving that as the final answer instead of subtracting it from 1.
- (c) No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6. — The theoretical probability of rolling a 6 on an ordinary dice is fixed at 1/6, worked out from the number of equally likely outcomes, and does not change however the dice is actually rolled. The relative frequency from this trial is 7/30, found from what happened in these particular 30 rolls. Since 7/30 and 1/6 are different numbers, the correct statement is 'No — 7/30 is the relative frequency; theory stays 1/6.' Assuming the two values must always match because they describe the same event gives 'Yes — relative frequency always equals theory.' Believing that an observed result redefines the theoretical probability gives 'Yes — the theoretical probability has now become 7/30.' Refusing to work out either value at all gives 'Neither can be found — 30 rolls is too few to tell', which ignores that both numbers CAN be calculated from the information given.
- (c) 0.15 — Method: for two independent events, multiply along the branches of the tree to find the probability of both outcomes happening together. Working: P(red and heads) = P(red) × P(heads) = 0.3 × 0.5 = 0.15. Answer: 0.15. Watch out: adding the two probabilities, 0.3 + 0.5 = 0.8, does not give the probability of both — probabilities along one path of a tree are multiplied, not added. Writing down 0.5 ignores the spinner altogether and gives only the coin's probability. And writing down 0.65 is the probability of red OR heads, which is 0.3 + 0.5 − 0.15 = 0.65, a different question from the one asked here.
- (b) 3 times as likely — Method: to say how many times as likely one event is as another, divide the larger probability by the smaller one; subtracting them gives the gap between the two probabilities, not the multiple. Working: both probabilities are counted in tenths, so 6/10 ÷ 2/10 compares 6 tenths with 2 tenths, and 6 ÷ 2 = 3. Answer: winning at the hoopla stall is 3 times as likely, which is why 6/10 sits three times as far along the 0 to 1 scale as 2/10. The distractors: 4 times as likely comes from subtracting the two counts, 6 − 2, instead of dividing them, which measures the gap rather than the multiple; 6 times as likely comes from reading the larger probability's 6 tenths straight off as the multiple without ever comparing it with the 2 tenths at the other stall; 12 times as likely comes from multiplying the two counts, 6 × 2, instead of dividing one by the other.
- (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.
- (b) 3/10 — Method: on a tree diagram, follow the path that matches the description and multiply the probabilities written along it; with nothing put back, the second set of branches is worked out from the counters that are left. Working: 3 of the 5 counters are yellow, so the first branch of the path is 3/5. A yellow counter has been kept out, so 4 counters remain and both green counters are still there, making the second branch 2/4. Multiplying along the path gives 6/20. Answer: the probability is 3/10. The distractors: 6/25 comes from using 2/5 on the second branch, which is the tree for a counter that is put back; 3/20 comes from taking one off the green count as well as off the total, using 1/4 on the second branch; 3/5 comes from reading the first branch only and never multiplying along the path.
- (b) 3/5 — The question asks about the girls only, so use the girls' total of 70 as the denominator: 42 out of 70 girls walk, giving 42/70 = 3/5. Choosing 21/65 comes from using the whole survey of 130 pupils as the denominator instead of just the 70 girls, 42/130 = 21/65. Choosing 33/70 comes from using the boys' walking count, 33, over the girls' total of 70, mixing up the two rows of the table. Choosing 2/5 comes from using the number of girls who CYCLE, 70 − 42 = 28, instead of the number who walk, giving 28/70 = 2/5.
- (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.
- (d) 4 — Method: list the elements of each set in full, then find which elements appear in both lists — that is A ∩ B. Working: factors of 12 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12}. Factors of 18 = {1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 18}. The elements in both lists are 1, 2, 3 and 6, so A ∩ B = {1, 2, 3, 6} and n(A ∩ B) = 4. Answer: 4. Watch out: writing down 6 gives n(A), the size of the factors-of-12 list on its own, not the size of the overlap. Writing down 8 comes from counting every element that appears in EITHER list, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 18 — that is the union, a different set from the intersection. And writing down 3 misses that 1 is a factor of both 12 and 18, and so belongs in A ∩ B alongside 2, 3 and 6.
- (b) 80 — To find the number of attempts needed, divide the target number of successes by the probability of success: 60 ÷ 0.75 = 80. Writing 45 is wrong because 60 × 0.75 = 45 multiplies instead of dividing — that is the number of successes expected from 60 attempts, not the number of attempts needed for 60 successes. Writing 240 is wrong because 60 ÷ 0.25 = 240 uses 0.25, the probability of MISSING, instead of 0.75, the probability of scoring. Writing 90 is wrong because it comes from misremembering 0.75 as 2/3 and dividing by that instead: 60 ÷ (2/3) = 90. She needs to attempt 80 free throws.
- (d) 19/30 — Exactly one means only fiction or only non-fiction, not both: 21 + 17 = 38 out of the 60 readers, which simplifies to 19/30. Including the 14 who read both as well gives 21 + 17 + 14 = 52, so 52/60 = 13/15 — that is at least one, not exactly one. Using only the both-count, 14, as the numerator gives 14/60 = 7/30, the probability of reading both, not exactly one. Using 52, the number who read at least one type, as the denominator instead of the full 60 readers surveyed gives 38/52 = 19/26.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.