Sample paper · GCSE Higher · grades 4–9
GCSE Higher sample Paper 2 (calculator)
The real Paper 2 is 1.5 hour 30 minutes and 80 marks, 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 a calculator allowed. AO1 / AO2 / AO3 at this tier: 40% / 30% / 30%.
CalculatorGCSE Higher
Answer key: GCSE Higher sample Paper 2 (calculator)
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6 — Convert all four fractions to a common denominator of 30: 2/3 is 20/30, 3/5 is 18/30, 5/6 is 25/30, and 1/2 is 15/30. Ordering by these numerators, smallest to largest, gives 15/30, 18/30, 20/30, 25/30, which is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6. Ordering by the size of the numerator in the original fractions, 1, 2, 3, 5, rather than converting to a common denominator, gives the wrong order 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/6, because it ignores that the denominators are different. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 5/6, 2/3, 3/5, 1/2. Using the rule "the bigger the denominator, the smaller the fraction" to place the last two, so that 5/6 is put below 2/3 because 6 is bigger than 3, gives 1/2, 3/5, 5/6, 2/3 — that rule only holds when the numerators are the same, and here 20/30 really is smaller than 25/30. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6.
- (d) 44 m — The trapezium rule between t = 2 and t = 5 uses only the speeds at t = 2, 3, 4 and 5 — 12, 15, 16 and 14 — with three strips of width 1: adding the first and last readings and twice the sum of the middle readings gives 12 + 14 + 2 × (15 + 16) = 88, and half of that is 44 m. Writing 68.5 m comes from applying the trapezium rule to the whole table, from t = 0 to t = 6, instead of restricting it to the interval t = 2 to t = 5 that the question asks for. Writing 28.5 m comes from forgetting to double the two middle readings, 15 and 16, in the trapezium rule formula. Writing 39 m comes from averaging only the first and last speeds in the interval, 12 and 14, and multiplying by the 3-second interval, ignoring the readings at t = 3 and t = 4 in between.
- (b) Day 3 to Day 4 — Method: the average rate of increase between two consecutive days is the difference in the number of orders divided by the number of days between them, which here is just the difference itself, since each gap is one day; comparing all four differences finds which is greatest. Working: the differences are 1,509 − 1,284 = 225 (Day 1 to Day 2), 1,830 − 1,509 = 321 (Day 2 to Day 3), 2,296 − 1,830 = 466 (Day 3 to Day 4), and 2,510 − 2,296 = 214 (Day 4 to Day 5); 466 is the greatest of the four, so the rate of increase was greatest from Day 3 to Day 4. Choosing Day 4 to Day 5 comes from picking the interval that ends on the highest total number of orders, 2,510, confusing the SIZE of the total with the RATE at which it grew. Choosing Day 1 to Day 2 comes from assuming the rate must be greatest at the very start, without working out any of the four differences. Choosing Day 2 to Day 3 comes from comparing only the first two differences, 225 and 321, and stopping there without checking Day 3 to Day 4 or Day 4 to Day 5. Finding the greatest rate of change from a table always means computing every difference between consecutive values and comparing them all — the day with the highest total, or the first pair you check, is not a shortcut.
- (c) AB and CD are equal in length — AB = CD states that the line segments AB and CD are equal in length; it says nothing about their direction or position. 'AB is parallel to CD' would be written AB ∥ CD, not AB = CD. 'A, B, C and D all lie on one line' is not what an equals sign between two segment names states at all. 'AB is perpendicular to CD' would be written AB ⊥ CD, not AB = CD.
- (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) Yes — with an estimate of 320, above the 250 limit. — Method: scale the sample proportion up to the whole batch to get an estimate, then compare that estimate with the 250 limit to reach a decision. Working: in the sample, 4 out of 50 boards are faulty, a proportion of 4 ÷ 50 = 0.08. Applying that proportion to the batch of 4,000 gives an estimate of 0.08 × 4000 = 320 faulty boards. Since 320 is more than 250, the factory should scrap the batch. Inverting the proportion, 50 ÷ 4 = 12.5, and treating that as a percentage of the batch, 12.5% × 4000 = 500, still gives 'yes' but from the wrong fraction, so it overstates the estimate. Comparing the raw number of faulty boards found in the sample, 4, directly with the 250 limit skips the scaling up to the batch altogether, and 4 is nowhere near 250, so that route wrongly says 'no'. Dividing the batch by the sample size, 4000 ÷ 50 = 80, finds how many samples of 50 fit into the batch but stops before multiplying by the 4 faulty boards found, so it also wrongly says 'no'. Always find the proportion in the sample first, scale it up to the whole batch, and only then compare the estimate with the limit given.
- (c) 12.3 ≤ t < 12.4 — Method: truncating cuts the later digits off instead of rounding them, so nothing is ever pushed upwards. The displayed value is therefore the smallest the time can be, and the time can run up to, but not reach, the next value the display can show. Working: the display reads 12.3, so the actual time is at least 12.3 seconds; as soon as the time reaches 12.3 + 0.1 = 12.4 seconds the display would read 12.4, so 12.4 is not included. Answer: 12.3 ≤ t < 12.4. The distractors: 12.25 ≤ t < 12.35 is the interval for a time rounded to 1 decimal place, and this display does not round; 12.3 < t ≤ 12.4 excludes the one value the display certainly allows and includes the one it rules out; 12.3 ≤ t ≤ 12.4 treats 12.4 seconds as possible, but at 12.4 seconds the display would no longer read 12.3.
- (d) x = 3 or x = −3 — Method: get x² on its own with a coefficient of 1, then take the square root of both sides and keep both the positive and the negative root. Working: dividing 2x² = 18 by 2 gives x² = 9, and the square root of 9 is 3, so x = 3 or x = −3; both check, because 2 × 9 = 18 either way. Answer: x = 3 or x = −3. The distractors: x = 9 or x = −9 comes from dividing by 2 and then forgetting to take the square root; x = 4 or x = −4 comes from subtracting 2 from 18 instead of dividing by it, giving x² = 16; x = 6 or x = −6 comes from multiplying by 2 instead of dividing, giving x² = 36.
- (c) £478.40 — Method: apply the percentage increase, then apply the percentage decrease to the new price. Working: after the increase, the laptop costs £520 × 1.15. Multiplying this result by 0.80 gives the final price, £478.40. Answer: £478.40. £494 comes from combining the two percentages into a single net change (15% − 20% = −5%) and applying it directly, £520 × 0.95 = £494, instead of applying the two changes one after the other. £416 comes from applying only the 20% decrease to the original price, £520 × 0.80 = £416, forgetting the increase entirely. £598 comes from applying only the 15% increase and stopping there, forgetting to apply the decrease at all.
- (d) 8.75 cm — The scale factor of the enlargement is 11.2 ÷ 3.2 = 3.5. Applying this to the second line, 2.5 × 3.5 = 8.75 cm. The distractor 10.50 cm comes from adding the difference between the first line's two lengths (11.2 − 3.2 = 8) to the second line's original length, 2.5 + 8 = 10.5. The distractor 0.71 cm comes from using the scale factor the wrong way round, 2.5 × (3.2 ÷ 11.2) = 0.71 (to 2 d.p.). The distractor 8.70 cm comes from directly subtracting 11.2 − 2.5 = 8.7, muddling the two different lines instead of scaling the second one.
- (b) 0.225 — The relative frequency of rain is the number of rainy days out of all days recorded: 9 ÷ 40 = 0.225, which is noticeably less than the forecaster's claimed 0.3. Using the number of dry days, 40 − 9 = 31, as the denominator instead of the total of 40 gives 9 ÷ 31 = 0.29 (2 d.p.). Simply reporting the forecaster's claimed value, 0.3, without calculating anything from the data at all, ignores the recorded results completely. Misplacing the decimal point, treating 9 out of 40 as 9%, gives 0.09 instead of 0.225.
- (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
- (a) (6, 8) — Method: a point lies on the circle x² + y² = 100 exactly when the squares of its two coordinates add to 100, so square both coordinates of each point and add them. Working: for (6, 8), 6² + 8² = 36 + 64 = 100, which matches the right-hand side of the equation. Answer: (6, 8) lies on the circle. The distractors: (3, 4) is the 3, 4, 5 right-angled triangle recalled but never scaled up to a radius of 10, and 3² + 4² = 25, so it lies on the far smaller circle x² + y² = 25; (5, 5) has coordinates adding to 10, which compares the sum of the coordinates with the radius instead of the sum of their squares with r², and 5² + 5² = 50; (10, 10) takes each coordinate separately to equal the radius, and 10² + 10² = 200, which is twice too big.
- (a) 3 hours — Method: for a fixed pool the rate of flow multiplied by the time taken is constant, so multiplying the rate by a factor divides the time by that same factor. Working: tap B's rate is 2 times tap A's rate, so tap B's time is 6 ÷ 2 = 3 hours. Answer: 3 hours. The distractors: 12 hours comes from multiplying the time by 2 as well, which treats the time as directly proportional to the rate and has the faster tap taking longer; 4 hours comes from reading ‘twice as fast’ additively, as two hours quicker, and working out 6 − 2 instead of scaling the time by a factor of 2; 1.5 hours comes from applying the factor of 2 twice, halving 6 to 3 and then halving again.
- (b) $\binom{-0.4}{-7}$ — The overall movement is the sum of the two vectors: (−1.2 + 0.8, −4.5 + (−2.5)) = (−0.4, −7). '$\binom{-2}{-2}$' comes from subtracting the second vector from the first instead of adding them. '$\binom{-0.4}{7}$' gets the top number right but drops the negative sign on the bottom number. '$\binom{2}{-7}$' comes from treating −1.2 + 0.8 as if the signs did not matter, giving +2 instead of −0.4.
- (a) 4 — Rectangle 1: P = 2(9 + 4) = 2 × 13 = 26 cm. Rectangle 2: P = 2(6 + 5) = 2 × 11 = 22 cm. Difference = 26 − 22 = 4 cm. 2 comes from finding the difference between (l + w) for each rectangle, 13 − 11 = 2, but forgetting to double it. 26 comes from giving rectangle 1's whole perimeter instead of the difference between the two. 6 comes from doubling only the change in length, 2 × (9 − 6), and ignoring that the width also changed.
- (c) 70 cm — Method: convert the real length to centimetres, then divide by the scale factor. Working: 84 m = 8400 cm. 8400 ÷ 120 = 70 cm. Wrong options: 0.7 cm comes from dividing 84 by 120 without converting metres to centimetres; 1,008,000 cm comes from multiplying instead of dividing (8400 × 120); 7 cm comes from converting 84 m to 840 cm (using ×10 instead of ×100) before dividing.
- (d) y = 2 — Two reflections in perpendicular lines that cross at a point combine to a 180° rotation about that point. The line x = 3 is vertical, so the second line must be horizontal, and it must pass through the centre of rotation (3, 2) — that line is y = 2. Taking the y-coordinate of the centre but writing it against the wrong letter gives y = 3. Assuming the second line must also be vertical, like the first one, and just swapping in the other coordinate gives x = 2. Reaching for the standard mirror line y = x without checking that it actually passes through (3, 2) gives y = x — it does not pass through that point at all. The line that is both perpendicular to x = 3 and through (3, 2) is y = 2.
- (a) 5x − 3 = 12 — 5x − 3 = 12 is an equation with exactly one solution: adding 3 and dividing by 5 gives x = 3, and no other value works. 5x − 3 = 5x − 3 is true for every value of x, since both sides are identical — it has infinitely many solutions, not one. 5x − 3 > 12 is an inequality: any value of x greater than 3 satisfies it, so it has a whole range of solutions, not a single one. 5x − 3 = 5x + 2 has no solution at all, since subtracting 5x from both sides leaves −3 = 2, which is never true. The equation with exactly one solution is 5x − 3 = 12.
- (a) 1.36 — Method: put the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, feed that value back in to get x₂, and round only once the second value has been found. Working: x₁ = 5 ÷ (1 + 2) = 5 ÷ 3 = 1.66666…; x₂ = 5 ÷ (1.66666… + 2) = 5 ÷ 3.66666… = 1.36363…. The digit in the third decimal place is 3, so x₂ = 1.36 correct to 2 decimal places. Answer: 1.36. The distractors: 1.67 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula, given by a candidate who counts the starting value itself as x₁; 1.49 is x₃ = 1.48648…, one use of the formula too many; 1.37 comes from writing x₁ down as 1.66, truncating the display instead of keeping it in full, and then working out 5 ÷ 3.66 = 1.36612…, which rounds up to 1.37.
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.