Relative frequency, the effect of more trials and expected frequency np (Year 12 Relative frequency and probability, 2024 Mathematics Standard 1 syllabus)
“Use relative frequency as an estimate of probability, recognise that more trials bring relative frequency closer to theoretical probability, and calculate expected frequency using np”
Relative frequency is the number of times an event happened divided by the number of trials, and it estimates probability, getting more reliable as the number of trials grows. Expected frequency is np, with n the number of repetitions and p the probability; it is an average, not a guarantee. Convert percentages to decimals first. Part of Year 12 Relative frequency and probability in the 2024 Mathematics Standard 1 syllabus.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Under the Mathematics Standard 11-12 Syllabus (2024), first examined in the 2027 HSC, Year 12 Standard 1 includes Relative frequency and probability as a focus area. Alongside sample spaces and tree diagrams (see sample spaces and two-stage events), NESA's page asks you to:
- use relative frequency as an estimate of probability;
- recognise that increasing the number of trials brings the relative frequency closer to the theoretical probability;
- calculate the expected frequency of an event using , where is the number of times an experiment is repeated and is the probability;
- examine how probability and statistics are used in the media, government and corporate decision-making.
The answer
Relative frequency comes from an experiment or survey and estimates the probability. Expected frequency uses the probability to predict how many times an event will happen. More trials make the relative frequency a more reliable estimate.
Relative frequency from data
When you cannot list equally likely outcomes (a drawing pin, a faulty product, a customer survey), do the experiment and record the results. If a pin lands point up times in drops, the relative frequency is , so we estimate .
Why more trials matter
A short run is dominated by chance. Three heads from five tosses is a relative frequency of even for a fair coin. As the number of trials increases, the relative frequency settles towards the true probability. This is why a poll of people is more trustworthy than a poll of .
Expected frequency
If an event has probability and the experiment is repeated times, the expected frequency is . A bus that is late with probability is expected to be late on days out of . Expected means "on average over many repetitions": the actual count in any one term can be or .
Use from theory when it is known (a fair die has ) and from relative frequency when it is not (an estimate from a survey).
From a table of results to a prediction
A shop recorded customers; paid by cash. . Next month it expects customers, so about will pay by cash.
Marker's note: the first part estimates a probability, the second part uses it.
Percentages as probabilities
of eggs in a farm's cartons are cracked, so . In eggs, expect cracked ones, and uncracked.
Marker's note: convert the percentage to a decimal before multiplying.
Comparing theory and experiment
A spinner has four equal sectors. In spins, sector occurred times. Expected: . Relative frequency: against the theoretical . The result is higher than predicted, but spins is a fairly small number, so this alone does not prove the spinner is biased.
Marker's note: comment on the size of the difference and on the number of trials.
- Dividing by the wrong number
- Relative frequency divides by the total number of trials, not by the number of times the event did not happen.
- Treating expected frequency as exact
- is an average. Write "about" or "expected", and do not claim the exact count will occur.
- Forgetting to convert percentages
- Use for , not .
- Believing a short run proves the probability is wrong
- A fair coin can give heads in tosses. Look at how many trials there were before drawing a conclusion.
- Mixing up which probability to use
- If the question gives you experimental results, use the relative frequency; if it describes a fair die or coin, use the theoretical probability.
Write "" and substitute, so the method mark is visible. If asked to comment, give two things: how close the experimental result is to the theory, and how many trials were done. Follow the question on rounding: an expected number of people may be given as a whole number or a decimal.
Practice questions
Original practice questions graded from foundation to exam level, each with a full worked solution. Try them before revealing the solution.
foundation2 marksA drawing pin was dropped times and landed point up times. Find the relative frequency of landing point up as a decimal and as a percentage.Show worked solution →
Relative frequency is the number of times the event happened divided by the number of trials.
Marker's note: one mark for the correct fraction, one for the decimal or percentage. The denominator is the number of trials (), not the number of times it landed point down.
foundation2 marksThe probability that a bus is late is . Over a term of school days, how many days would you expect the bus to be late?Show worked solution →
Use expected frequency , with and .
Marker's note: one mark for the substitution, one for . The answer is an expected value, not a guarantee.
core3 marksA fair die is rolled times. (a) How many sixes are expected? (b) A six actually came up times. Find the relative frequency of a six as a decimal correct to decimal places and compare it with the theoretical probability.Show worked solution →
- (a) Expected number
- , so .
- (b) Relative frequency
- .
- Compare
- The theoretical probability is , so the experimental result is lower than expected. With only rolls, a difference of sixes from is quite possible by chance.
Marker's note: one mark for , one for , one for a sensible comparison. A comment that a short run can differ from the theory without the die being unfair is rewarded.
core3 marksA coin is tossed in three experiments. After tosses there were heads, after tosses there were heads, and after tosses there were heads. Find the relative frequency of heads in each experiment and explain what the results show.Show worked solution →
Relative frequencies.
| Tosses | Heads | Relative frequency | Difference from |
|---|---|---|---|
What it shows. As the number of trials increases, the relative frequency gets closer to the theoretical probability of . Results from a larger number of trials are a more reliable estimate of probability.
Marker's note: one mark for the three values, one for the trend, one for stating that more trials give a better estimate.
core3 marksA factory finds that of the phone covers it makes are faulty. In a batch of covers, how many are expected to be faulty, and how many are expected to be free of faults?Show worked solution →
Faulty. , so .
Not faulty. , so . Check: .
Marker's note: one mark for converting to , one for , one for .
exam4 marksA spinner has three colours. In spins it landed on red times, on blue times and on green times. (a) Find the relative frequency of each colour. (b) If the spinner were equally likely to land on each colour, how many times would each colour be expected in spins? (c) Use the relative frequency of red to estimate the number of reds in spins.Show worked solution →
- (a) Relative frequencies
- Red , blue , green . These add to .
- (b) Equally likely
- Each colour has , so the expected frequency is , about spins.
- (c) Estimate for spins
- Using as the probability, reds.
Marker's note: one mark for each of (a) and (b), and two for (c), one for using the relative frequency as and one for . Blue is noticeably below , so it is reasonable to suspect the spinner is not fair, but spins is not enough to be certain.
exam3 marksIn a survey of randomly chosen residents of a town, said they prefer to travel to work by train. Estimate how many of the residents of the town prefer the train, and give one reason why the estimate may not be accurate.Show worked solution →
- Relative frequency from the sample
- .
- Expected number in the town
- residents.
- Why it may be inaccurate
- The sample of is small compared with , so another sample could give a different proportion. A larger random sample gives a better estimate.
Marker's note: one mark for , one for , one for a valid reason such as a small sample or a possibly unrepresentative sample.