Sample paper · GCSE Higher · grades 4–9
GCSE Higher sample Paper 1 (non-calculator)
The real Paper 1 is 1.5 hour 30 minutes and 80 marks, non-calculator, and all three papers carry equal weight. This sample is 20 original questions in the same content proportions as the Higher qualification — number 15%, algebra 30%, ratio, proportion and rates of change 20%, geometry and measures 20%, probability 7.5%, statistics 7.5% — with no calculator-only items. AO1 / AO2 / AO3 at this tier: 40% / 30% / 30%.
Non-calculatorGCSE Higher
Answer key: GCSE Higher sample Paper 1 (non-calculator)
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (c) 3:4 — The jacket costs 3/7 of £84, which is 3 × (84 ÷ 7) = 3 × 12 = £36. The bag then costs the rest of the money, £84 − £36 = £48. The ratio of the jacket to the bag is 36:48, which simplifies to 3:4. Writing the fraction spent on the jacket, 3/7, directly as the ratio, without working out that the bag's share is the remaining 4/7, gives 3:7. Giving the ratio the wrong way round, bag to jacket instead of jacket to bag, gives 4:3. Assuming the jacket and bag cost the same, ignoring the fraction given, gives 1:1.
- (b) y = 84 − 14x — Method: the distance still to go is the whole route minus the distance already covered, and at a steady speed the distance covered after x hours is the speed multiplied by x. Working: after x hours Freya has cycled 14x km, so the distance remaining is the 84 km route take away 14x, giving y = 84 − 14x, a straight line with intercept 84 and gradient −14. Answer: y = 84 − 14x. The distractors: y = 84 + 14x comes from adding the distance cycled to the length of the route rather than taking it away, so the ride would grow longer the further she goes; y = 14x − 84 comes from carrying out the subtraction the wrong way round, which is negative for the whole of the ride; y = 14 − 84x comes from swapping the two numbers over, treating 84 km as the hourly speed and 14 km as the length of the route.
- (a) 150 g — Method: scale the recipe to find the total sugar needed, then subtract the sugar Sam already has. Working: 200 ÷ 8 × 20 = 500, so 500 g is needed in total; 500 − 350 = 150, so 150 g still to buy. Stopping after finding the total, 500, without subtracting what he has gives 500 g. Scaling the wrong way round, 200 × 8 ÷ 20 = 80, wrongly suggests he already has enough, giving 0 g. Adding the amount he has instead of subtracting it, 500 + 350 = 850, gives 850 g.
- (a) 25° — PA and PB are tangents from the same external point, so PA = PB and OAPB is a kite with right angles at A and B, by the tangent–radius theorem: angle OAP = angle OBP = 90°. The four angles of the kite sum to 360°, so angle AOB = 360° − 90° − 90° − 50° = 130°. Triangle OAB is isosceles because OA = OB, both radii, so its base angles are equal: angle OAB = (180° − 130°) ÷ 2 = 25°. Using angle APB itself as the apex angle of triangle OAB instead of angle AOB gives (180° − 50°) ÷ 2 = 65°. Using a triangle's angle sum on the four-sided kite, and so counting only one of its two right angles, treats angle AOB as 180° − 90° − 50° = 40°, and halving what is then left of triangle OAB gives (180° − 40°) ÷ 2 = 70°. Finding angle AOB = 130° correctly but forgetting to halve for the isosceles base angle gives 180° − 130° = 50°. Halve that remaining angle, and 25° is what's left for angle OAB.
- (a) 43/70 — There are 140 − 85 = 55 Zone B households, and 55 − 21 = 34 of them recycle glass. In total, 52 + 34 = 86 households recycle glass, out of 140: 86/140 = 43/70. Writing 13/35 is wrong because 52/140 simplifies to 13/35, and 52 only counts Zone A, leaving out the 34 Zone B recyclers. Writing 17/70 is wrong because 34/140 simplifies to 17/70, and 34 only counts Zone B, leaving out the 52 Zone A recyclers. Writing 73/140 is wrong because it adds the 52 Zone A recyclers to the 21 Zone B households that do NOT recycle, mixing up two different groups instead of adding the two recycling groups. The probability is 43/70.
- (a) No, the size of the fire affects both of the quantities — Method: correlation says that two quantities change together; a claim that one of them produces the other is a further claim, and it needs evidence that a scatter graph on its own cannot give. Working: the graph does show strong positive correlation, so more engines did go with greater damage. But neither quantity was set by the researchers: both were decided by how large the fire was. A large blaze brings many appliances and also destroys a great deal, while a small one brings few and destroys little, so a third quantity is driving both of the recorded ones. Answer: no, because the size of the fire affects both of the quantities. The distractors: saying the correlation is negative contradicts the graph, which shows the two quantities rising together, and reaching the right verdict from a false reading of the data is not the reason the mark is for; saying that strong positive correlation shows one quantity causes the other is the assumption the question exists to test, and no strength of correlation can establish cause; saying the points lie close to the line of best fit describes how strong the correlation is, and strength and cause are different matters entirely.
- (a) 8 × 10² — Method: to multiply numbers written in standard form, multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 4 × 2 = 8 for the coefficients, and −3 + 5 = 2 for the indices; 8 already lies between 1 and 10, so no adjustment is needed. Answer: 8 × 10². The distractors: 6 × 10² comes from adding the coefficients, 4 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 8 × 10⁸ comes from ignoring the minus sign and adding 3 + 5; 8 × 10⁻¹⁵ comes from multiplying the indices, −3 × 5, instead of adding them.
- (a) −2 m/s² — The gradient of a line through two points is the change in the y-value divided by the change in the x-value: (6 − 22)/(16 − 8) = −16/8 = −2 m/s². The negative sign confirms the deceleration mentioned in the question. Writing 2 m/s² comes from subtracting the velocities in the wrong order, using (22 − 6) instead of (6 − 22), which loses the sign that shows the car is slowing down. Writing −0.5 m/s² comes from inverting the fraction, dividing the change in time by the change in velocity instead of the other way round. Writing −16 m/s² comes from finding the change in velocity, −16, but forgetting to divide by the change in time, 8 seconds.
- (d) £82.50 — Find the hourly rate: £52.50 ÷ 7 = £7.50 per hour. For 11 hours: 11 × £7.50 = £82.50. £30 comes from working out the pay for only the extra 4 hours (4 × £7.50), and forgetting to include the original £52.50. £99 comes from misremembering the hourly rate as £9 instead of £7.50, then 11 × £9. £56.50 comes from adding the extra number of hours (4) straight onto the pay in pounds (52.5 + 4), confusing hours with pounds.
- (b) 61° — Triangle OAT is isosceles because OA = OT, both radii, so its base angles are equal: angle OTA = angle OAT = (180° − 122°) ÷ 2 = 29°. The tangent PT meets the radius OT at 90°, by the tangent–radius theorem, so angle OTP = 90°. Since TA lies between TO and TP, angle OTP splits into angle OTA and angle ATP: angle ATP = 90° − 29° = 61°. Stopping after the isosceles step and reporting the base angle itself gives 29°. Finding the base angles as 180° − 122° without halving, then subtracting from 90°, gives 90° − 58° = 32°. Adding the base angle to 90° instead of subtracting it gives 90° + 29° = 119°. Subtract the base angle from the right angle, and 61° is what's left.
- (a) 70 — Method: two linked steps. Find the expected number of billing calls first, then take the 35% of those, because the 35% is quoted for billing calls only. Working: 40% of 500 is 200 billing calls. 35% of 200 is 70 calls. Answer: you would expect 70 calls. The distractors: 200 stops after the first step and gives the billing calls, forgetting that only some of them are dealt with quickly; 175 is 35% of 500, applying the quick response rate to every call the centre takes rather than to the billing calls only; 375 comes from adding 40% and 35% to get 75% and taking 75% of 500, which treats two stages of one journey as separate outcomes to be added.
- (c) 24 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 6.4 rounds to 6 (nearest whole number) and 3.9 rounds to 4 (nearest whole number). 6 × 4 = 24. Answer: 24. 18 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 4, giving 6 × 3. 28 comes from rounding 6.4 up to 7 instead of down to the nearest whole number, 6, giving 7 × 4. 25 is the exact value of 6.4 × 3.9, which is 24.96, rounded to the nearest whole number after multiplying, rather than estimated by rounding first.
- (d) An inequality, because ≤ compares the two sides — The symbol ≤ means 'is less than or equal to', so the statement compares the sizes of the two sides instead of saying they are equal: that makes it an inequality. Solving it gives n ≤ 5, a whole range of values rather than the single value an equation would give. An identity has to be true for every value of the letter, and this fails at n = 6, so it is not one. A formula works one quantity out from another, and there is only one letter here.
- (c) 5 hours — Method: measure the job in decorator-hours, which is in the same ratio as the number of rooms, then share the decorator-hours between the decorators available. Working: 5 decorators × 6 hours = 30 decorator-hours for 3 rooms, so one room takes 30 ÷ 3 = 10 decorator-hours; 5 rooms take 5 × 10 = 50 decorator-hours; shared between 10 decorators that is 50 ÷ 10 = 5 hours. Answer: 5 hours. The distractors: 3 hours comes from halving the 6 hours because the number of decorators doubles, while forgetting that there are also more rooms to paint; 10 hours comes from scaling the 6 hours up for the rooms only, 6 × 5 ÷ 3, and leaving the workforce at 5 decorators; 6 hours comes from assuming that doubling the decorators and increasing the rooms cancel each other out, which they do not, because the rooms rise by a factor of 5/3 and the workforce by a factor of 2.
- (b) 6 cm — Method: the right angle is at A, so BC is the hypotenuse and AC is the side opposite the angle at B; sin B = opposite ÷ hypotenuse therefore gives AC ÷ BC = 3/5. Working: AC ÷ 10 = 3/5, so AC = 10 × 3 ÷ 5 = 6. Answer: 6 cm. The distractors: 8 cm is AB, the side next to the angle at B, which is what cos B = 4/5 produces — the right method used on the wrong side; 3 cm comes from reading the 3 in the ratio as a length and never scaling it up to the 10 cm hypotenuse; 30 cm comes from multiplying by 3 and forgetting to divide by 5.
- (d) 7 — Method: substitute both values, work out the two multiplications first, and only then subtract. Working: 3a = 3 × 5 = 15 and 2b = 2 × 4 = 8, so the expression becomes 15 − 8 = 7. Answer: 7. The distractors: 23 comes from adding the two products instead of subtracting, giving 15 + 8; −7 comes from subtracting the wrong way round and working out 8 − 15; 52 comes from working from left to right instead of following the order of operations, giving 3 × 5 = 15, then 15 − 2 = 13, then 13 × 4.
- (a) 4 days — Method: the fence is a fixed amount of work, so builders × days is constant; find that product and divide it by the new number of builders. Working: 3 × 12 = 36 builder-days of work, so with 9 builders the time is 36 ÷ 9 = 4 days. Answer: 4 days. The distractors: 6 days comes from halving the 12 days because there are more builders, rather than dividing by the factor of 3 by which the workforce has grown; 36 days is the constant product of builders and days, given as a number of days instead of being shared between the builders; 9 days comes from taking 3 days off the 12, treating three extra builders as three fewer days, which is additive rather than proportional.
- (b) −2 — The gradient of the original line is (6 − 2) ÷ (3 − 1) = 4 ÷ 2 = 2. Reflecting in the x-axis sends every y-coordinate to its negative, which flips the sign of the gradient: the image line has gradient −2. Translating by (2, 0) is a horizontal shift, which does not change the line's steepness or direction at all, so the gradient stays at −2. Assuming the gradient is unaffected by the reflection gives 2, the original gradient carried straight through. Thinking a reflection in the x-axis turns a gradient into its positive reciprocal gives 1/2. Combining that same wrong idea with the sign flip from the reflection gives −1/2. Only the sign flips, from the reflection, and translating never changes a gradient at all, so the answer is −2.
- (d) 2√2 — The radius satisfies r² = 8, so r = √8 = √(4 × 2) = √4 × √2 = 2√2. Choosing 8 forgets to take the square root of r² at all. Choosing 4 comes from halving 8 instead of finding its square root. Choosing √2 splits off the factor of 4 correctly but forgets to multiply the 2 back in front of the root.
- (d) 5n − 1 — The common difference is 5 (9−4=5), so the expression starts 5n. To match the first term when n=1, 5×1+c=4, so c=−1: the nth term is 5n−1. A candidate who uses the first term itself as the constant, instead of first term minus the common difference, would write 5n+4 (giving 9, 14, 19, 24 — one term too high throughout). A candidate who omits the constant term altogether would write just 5n (giving 5, 10, 15, 20, not matching the sequence). A candidate who adds the common difference to n instead of multiplying would write n+5 (giving 6, 7, 8, 9, far too small).
How the 20 questions are shared out
- Number — 3 questions (15% of the qualification)
- Algebra — 6 questions (30% of the qualification)
- Ratio, proportion and rates of change — 4 questions (20% of the qualification)
- Geometry and measures — 4 questions (20% of the qualification)
- Probability — 2 questions (7.5% of the qualification)
- Statistics — 1 question (7.5% of the qualification)
Where an area has fewer printable questions than its share, the shortfall is filled from the other areas. These are original questions, not past papers.