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) 1/4 — There are 6 × 2 = 12 equally likely outcomes. The even-numbered cards are 2, 4 and 6, so there are 3 × 1 = 3 outcomes with an even card and tails, giving a probability of 3/12 = 1/4. Choosing 1/2 comes from working out only the probability of drawing an even card, 3/6, and forgetting to combine it with the coin landing on tails. Choosing 1/12 comes from treating only one specific outcome, such as card 6 with tails, as the only one that counts, instead of all three even cards paired with tails. Choosing 1/8 comes from doubling the coin stage when counting the total, using 6 × 2 × 2 = 24 outcomes instead of 6 × 2 = 12, and giving 3/24 = 1/8.
- (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.
- (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) (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.
- (d) 3/5 — The first tile drawn is a consonant with probability 4/5, since 4 of the 5 letters in MATHS are consonants. Since it is not replaced, 3 consonants remain out of the 4 tiles left, so the second tile is a consonant with probability 3/4. Multiplying gives 4/5 × 3/4 = 3/5. Choosing 4/5 comes from only using the probability for the first draw and forgetting the second draw changes once a tile is removed. Choosing 3/4 comes from only using the probability for the second draw on its own. Choosing 16/25 comes from treating the two draws as independent, using 4/5 × 4/5 = 16/25, which would only be correct if the first tile were replaced before the second draw.
- (b) 10 — Method: A′ means everything in the universal set that is NOT in A, so n(A′) = n(universal set) − n(A). Working: the universal set has 15 elements. A = {3, 6, 9, 12, 15}, so n(A) = 5. n(A′) = 15 − 5 = 10. Answer: 10. Watch out: writing down 5 gives n(A) itself, the size of the multiples-of-3 set, which is the opposite of its complement. Writing down 11 comes from missing 15 off the list of multiples of 3, treating A as only {3, 6, 9, 12}, so A is undercounted as 4 and A′ is overstated as 15 − 4. And writing down 12 comes from only listing the multiples of 3 up to 9 — 3, 6 and 9 — and missing that 12 and 15 also belong to A, undercounting A as 3 rather than 5.
- (b) 1/6 — Method: list the ordered pairs where the two scores match, and divide by the 36 equally likely pairs. Working: the matching pairs are (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3), (4, 4), (5, 5) and (6, 6), which is 6 pairs out of 36, cancelling down to 1/6. Answer: 1/6. Watch out: writing down 1/36 finds the probability of one particular double, such as (6, 6), rather than any double at all. Guessing 1/2 treats 'same' and 'different' as equally likely events, when there are only 6 matching pairs against 30 non-matching ones. And writing down 1/3 comes from listing each double twice, once for each order of the two dice, giving 12 pairs out of 36 — but (1, 1) is a single outcome, and swapping the two dice over does not produce a second one.
- (d) 5 — Being red and not being red are exhaustive, so their probabilities sum to 1: the probability of red is 1 − 0.8 = 0.2. The number of red counters is 0.2 × 25 = 5. Using 0.8 directly as the probability of red, without taking the complement, gives 0.8 × 25 = 20 — the number of counters that are NOT red. Sharing the 25 counters equally between the three colours, ignoring the given probability altogether, gives 25 ÷ 3 ≈ 8. Misreading the total as 20 counters instead of 25 gives 0.2 × 20 = 4.
- (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) 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.
- (a) 1/12 — Method: for draws with nothing put back, multiply the probabilities of the three draws, reducing both the number of red counters and the total each time a red counter is removed. Working: the first counter is red with probability 5/10. One red counter has gone, so the second is red with probability 4/9, and then the third is red with probability 3/8. Multiplying gives 60/720. Answer: the probability is 1/12. The distractors: 1/8 comes from using 5/10 three times, which is what happens only if each counter is put back; 2/9 comes from stopping after two draws and giving 5/10 × 4/9; 3/50 comes from taking one off the red count each time but leaving the total at 10, giving 5/10 × 4/10 × 3/10.
- (c) 0.37 — Method: pool the two runs into one combined set of results, then find the relative frequency of red across all of the spins together. Working: total reds = 16 + 21 = 37. Total spins = 40 + 60 = 100. Relative frequency = 37 ÷ 100 = 0.37. Answer: 0.37. Watch out: writing down 0.40 uses only the first run, 16 ÷ 40, and throws away the extra evidence from the second 60 spins. Writing down 0.35 uses only the second run, 21 ÷ 60, and throws away the first run instead. And writing down 0.375 averages the two runs' separate rates, (0.40 + 0.35) ÷ 2, which treats a run of 40 spins and a run of 60 spins as equally weighted, when pooling the actual counts gives the larger run its fair share of influence.
- (c) Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%. — Converting 11/32 to a decimal gives 11 ÷ 32 = 0.34375, which is greater than 34% (0.34), so Noah has the better save rate: 'Noah — 11/32 = 0.34375, above 34%.' Comparing the raw numbers 34 and 11 directly, without converting the fraction to the same form, gives 'Elin — 34 is bigger than 11.' Treating a larger denominator as meaning a bigger value, rather than smaller equal shares, gives 'Noah — 32 is a bigger denominator.' Rounding 34.375% to 34% to the nearest whole percent hides the difference and gives 'Equal — both round to 34% to the nearest percent.'
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.