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
- (c) Sam is correct — The leading zeros in 0.070268 are not significant, so the first three significant figures are 7, 0 and 2. The next digit along is 6, and since 6 is 5 or more, the third significant figure rounds up from 2 to 3, giving 0.0703. This means Sam's answer is correct. Writing 0.070 keeps only 2 significant figures, one short of what was asked. Writing 0.0702 ignores the digit 6 that follows and leaves the third figure unrounded. Writing 0.0704 rounds the third figure up twice, as if a later digit had also pushed it up.
- (a) Yes — the gradients multiply to −2 × 1/2 = −1. — Rearrange Q into the form y = mx + c: 2y = x + 6 gives y = (1/2)x + 3, so Q has gradient 1/2. P has gradient −2. Two lines are perpendicular exactly when the product of their gradients is −1: −2 × 1/2 = −1. Since this holds, P and Q are perpendicular. Distractor routes: "the product is −1, but perpendicular needs 1" works out the product correctly but misremembers the condition — the perpendicular test is a product of exactly −1, and parallel lines are spotted by their gradients being equal, not by a product of 1. "Q's gradient is 2, and −2 × 2 = −4" comes from reading the 2 in front of y in 2y = x + 6 as the gradient, instead of dividing the whole equation by 2 first to reach y = (1/2)x + 3, where the gradient is 1/2. "Both equations have a negative x-term" is not a valid test at all — P's equation does have a negative x-term, but Q's, once rearranged, does not, and matching signs say nothing about the actual gradients.
- (d) £144 — Method: find the length (perimeter) scale factor by taking the square root of the area ratio, then apply it to the cost. Working: 12 : 27 simplifies to 4 : 9, and the square root of each part gives the length ratio 2 : 3, so the scale factor from the smaller to the larger pond is 3 ÷ 2 = 1.5. Cost = £96 × 1.5 = £144. Answer: £144. £216 comes from using the area ratio itself as the cost ratio, £96 × (27 ÷ 12) = £216, without taking the square root. £64 comes from using the length ratio the wrong way round, £96 × (2 ÷ 3) = £64. £111 comes from simply adding the difference in area, 27 − 12 = 15, onto the original cost, £96 + £15 = £111, instead of scaling proportionally.
- (b) No — should divide by −2bc, not +2bc; sign is wrong. — Method: rearrange a² = b² + c² − 2bc cos A step by step and compare with the student's version. Working: subtracting b² + c² from both sides gives a² − b² − c² = −2bc cos A, then dividing both sides by −2bc gives cos A = (a² − b² − c²) / (−2bc), which is the same as cos A = (b² + c² − a²) / (2bc). The student divided by +2bc instead of −2bc, so their expression is the negative of the correct one — the verdict is No. Saying the algebra is fine because 'either sign order gives a valid result' ignores that only one of the two signed expressions matches the original equation. Saying the denominator should be bc rather than 2bc is a different, unrelated error — the coefficient 2bc in the original formula is correct and must stay.
- (d) 3/10 — Method: list the full possibility space as pairs of coin and spinner results, then count how many pairs satisfy both conditions and divide by the size of the whole space. Working: the coin gives 2 outcomes and the spinner gives 5, so the full space has 2 × 5 = 10 equally likely pairs. The pairs with a tail and an odd number are (T,1), (T,3) and (T,5), which is 3 out of 10. Answer: 3/10. Watch out: writing down 1/2 uses only the coin's own chance of a tail and ignores that the spinner also has to land on an odd number. Writing down 3/5 uses only the spinner's chance of landing on an odd number and ignores the coin altogether. And writing down 1/10 counts just one matching outcome, such as (T,1), instead of all three pairs that satisfy both conditions.
- (c) Because every pupil has an equal chance of being picked — Method: whether a sample represents its population is decided by the selection method, not by the size of the sample, so ask whether the method gives every member of the population the same chance of being chosen. Working: the names are drawn at random from a list of all 10,000 pupils, so each pupil has the same chance, 500 out of 10,000, of being drawn, and no group of pupils is more likely to appear than any other; that is what keeps bias out of the sample. Answer: because every pupil has an equal chance of being picked. The distractors: the reply about 5% treats the sampling fraction as the test of fairness, but a badly chosen 5% is still biased and a well chosen 1% is not; the reply about 500 being large enough makes size the test instead, which is the same mistake in another form, since a large sample drawn from one school would still misrepresent the city; the reply about the most willing pupils describes self-selection, which hands the choice of who is in the sample to the pupils who feel most strongly about the question.
- (c) 3.2 litres — The blue paint is 3 of the 8 equal shares in the mix, that is 3/8 of the total. Three shares are 1.2 litres, so one share is 1.2 ÷ 3 = 0.4 litres. The whole mix is 8 shares: 8 × 0.4 = 3.2 litres. 2 litres is the volume of white paint, 1.92 litres divides the blue paint by the white paint's 5 shares instead of its own 3, and 9.6 litres treats the 1.2 litres as a single share.
- (b) 6 — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis turns the minimum point (2, −3) into a maximum point at (2, 3), since −f(x) negates every y-value: −(−3) = 3. Adding a then gives 3 + a = 9, so a = 9 − 3 = 6. Forgetting the reflection and using the original y-value of −3 gives −3 + a = 9, so a = 12 — this ignores that −f(x) changes the sign of the y-coordinate before a is added. Writing a = −12 comes from subtracting in the wrong order, working out 9 − (−3) as −3 − 9 instead. Writing a = −6 comes from taking the negative of the correct answer, as if the final value of a needed to be reflected too, on top of the turning point.
- (a) 4 weeks — Apply the recurrence week by week. C_1 = 0.75 × 500 + 40 = 375 + 40 = 415. C_2 = 0.75 × 415 + 40 = 311.25 + 40 = 351.25. C_3 = 0.75 × 351.25 + 40 = 263.4375 + 40 = 303.4375. C_4 = 0.75 × 303.4375 + 40 = 227.578125 + 40 = 267.578125. C_3 = 303.4375 is still above 300, but C_4 = 267.58 has dropped below it, so the lake first becomes safe after 4 weeks. Taking 25% of the ORIGINAL 500 every week instead of 25% of the current amount, a flat 125 each time, gives 500 − 125 + 40 = 415, then 415 − 125 + 40 = 330, then 330 − 125 + 40 = 245, which crosses 300 a week too early and gives the wrong answer of 3 weeks. Continuing one extra step to C_5 = 0.75 × 267.578125 + 40 = 200.68 + 40 = 240.68 and calling it 5 weeks overshoots, since the concentration had already dropped below 300 at C_4. Forgetting the 40 units of run-off each week and only applying the decay gives C_1 = 0.75 × 500 = 375, then C_2 = 0.75 × 375 = 281.25 — this is already below 300 after only 2 weeks, because without the run-off the concentration falls much faster.
- (a) 90° clockwise about (0, 0) — Two reflections in lines through a common point compose to a single rotation about that point, through an angle equal to twice the angle between the two lines, in the direction from the first line to the second. The line y = x makes a 45° angle with the line y = 0, so the resulting rotation turns through 2 × 45° = 90°; testing the point (1, 0) — which reflects to (0, 1) in y = x, then to (0, −1) in y = 0 — shows the turn is clockwise, about the origin where the two lines cross. Taking the rotation anticlockwise instead reverses the direction the two reflections actually compose in. Using 45° directly, without doubling the angle between the lines, gives an angle equal to only half the true rotation. Treating any pair of reflecting lines as perpendicular, and so always giving a 180° rotation, ignores that these two lines actually meet at 45°, not 90°.
- (a) 0.48 — There are two ways to score exactly one throw: scoring on the first and missing the second, 0.6 × 0.4 = 0.24, or missing the first and scoring the second, 0.4 × 0.6 = 0.24. Adding these gives 0.24 + 0.24 = 0.48. Choosing 0.24 comes from working out only one of the two paths and forgetting the other one also gives exactly one score. Choosing 0.36 comes from working out the probability of scoring BOTH throws, 0.6 × 0.6 = 0.36, instead of exactly one. Choosing 0.84 comes from working out the probability of scoring AT LEAST one throw, 1 − 0.4 × 0.4 = 0.84, instead of exactly one.
- (b) 88.8 — Multiply as whole numbers first, ignoring the decimal point: 37 × 24. Split it as 37 × 20 = 740 and 37 × 4 = 148, so 37 × 24 = 740 + 148 = 888. 3.7 has 1 decimal place and 24 has none, so the answer needs 1 decimal place: 88.8. Counting the 2 digits in "3.7" as though that were the number of decimal places gives 8.88 instead of 1 decimal place. Leaving the decimal point out altogether gives 888. Misreading 37 × 4 as 138 rather than 148 gives a running total of 878, placed with 1 decimal place as 87.8. So 3.7 × 24 = 88.8.
- (d) 6 — Method: write an expression for each person's savings after w weeks, and set them equal. Working: 40 + 6w = 10 + 11w. Subtract 6w from both sides: 40 = 10 + 5w. Subtract 10: 30 = 5w, so w = 6. Answer: 6 weeks. 0 comes from setting only the weekly amounts equal, 6w = 11w, and ignoring the different starting amounts entirely. 10 comes from adding the two starting amounts and dividing by the difference in weekly amounts, (40 + 10) ÷ (11 − 6), instead of forming and solving the correct equation. 1.76 comes from adding the two weekly amounts instead of subtracting them when rearranging, (40 − 10) ÷ (11 + 6).
- (c) 6.00 m — Method: the ratio of height to shadow length is the same for both objects. Working: road sign height ÷ shadow = 3 ÷ 5 = 0.6. Lamppost height = 0.6 × 10 = 6.00 m. Wrong options: 16.67 m comes from inverting the ratio, using shadow ÷ height instead of height ÷ shadow (10 × 5 ÷ 3); 8.00 m comes from adding the difference between the two shadow lengths to the road sign's height instead of scaling (3 + (10 − 5)); 1.50 m comes from multiplying by the ratio of the two shadow lengths the wrong way round (3 × 5 ÷ 10).
- (d) 2546 cm² — Each of the 8 triangles formed by joining O to the vertices is isosceles, with two sides of 30 cm and an angle at O of 360° ÷ 8 = 45°. The area of one triangle is 1/2 × 30 × 30 × sin 45° = 450 × 0.7071 = 318.2 cm². Multiplying by 8 gives the area of the octagon: 318.2 × 8 = 2545.6 cm², which rounds to 2546 cm². Taking the area of a single triangle as the final answer, without multiplying by 8, gives 318 cm². Multiplying by 6 instead of 8, as for a hexagon, gives 318.2 × 6 = 1909 cm². Leaving out the 1/2 from the triangle area formula gives 30 × 30 × sin 45° × 8 = 5091 cm².
- (d) Formula A gives £39 and Formula B gives £39, and since 3(2n + 5) expands to 6n + 15 for every value of n, the stallholder is correct. — Formula A: 3(2 × 4 + 5) = 3 × 13 = £39. Formula B: 6 × 4 + 15 = 24 + 15 = £39. Expanding Formula A algebraically gives 3(2n + 5) = 6n + 15, which is identical to Formula B for every value of n, not just n = 4, so the stallholder is correct — this is an identity, not a coincidence. The option giving £29 for Formula A comes from multiplying only the 2n by 3 and forgetting to also multiply the 5, then adding the unmultiplied 5: 3 × 2 × 4 = 24, + 5 = 29. The two options that reach the correct numbers but reject the stallholder's claim both use faulty reasoning — matching values at one value of n, or counting terms, does not decide whether two expressions are identical for every n; expanding the bracket does.
- (c) 15 — Method: the number of cakes is in direct proportion to the mass of flour, so find the multiplier between the two masses and apply it to the number of cakes. Working: 6 ÷ 2 = 3, so there is three times as much flour, and 5 × 3 = 15. Answer: 15. The distractors: 10 comes from multiplying the 5 cakes by 2, the mass in the recipe, instead of by the multiplier 3; 20 comes from multiplying by the difference 6 − 2 = 4, treating a proportion problem as a difference problem; 12 comes from rounding 5 ÷ 2 down to 2 cakes per kilogram and working out 6 × 2.
- (d) 49° — Method: first combine the two given angles at the centre to find the whole central angle FOM, then apply the angle-at-the-centre theorem, which halves the central angle to give the angle at the circumference on the major arc. Working: angle FOM = angle FOP + angle POM = 55 + 43 = 98 degrees. Since S is on the major arc FM, angle FSM = 98 ÷ 2 = 49 degrees. Answer: 49°. Add BOTH given angles to find the whole angle FOM before you halve anything: halving only one of them, doubling the total instead of halving it, or subtracting from 180° all give the wrong angle for the programme.
- (c) 25 — Method: read off a, b and c with their signs and substitute them into b² − 4ac. Working: for 2x² + 3x − 2 = 0, a = 2, b = 3 and c = −2, so b² − 4ac = 3² − 4 × 2 × (−2) = 9 − (−16) = 9 + 16 = 25. Answer: 25. The distractors: −7 comes from taking c as +2, which gives 9 − 16; 22 comes from working b² as 2 × 3 = 6 and then 6 + 16; 13 comes from leaving the 4 out of 4ac and working 9 − 2 × (−2).
- (a) 48 litres — Split the area into three sections. The rectangle (t = 0 to 2) has area 2 × 12 = 24. The first trapezium (t = 2 to 5, parallel sides 12 and 3, width 3) has area 1/2 × (12 + 3) × 3 = 22.5. The second trapezium (t = 5 to 6, parallel sides 3 and 0, width 1) has area 1/2 × (3 + 0) × 1 = 1.5. Total volume: 24 + 22.5 + 1.5 = 48 litres. Forgetting the rectangle and adding only the two trapeziums gives 22.5 + 1.5 = 24 litres. Using a single trapezium across the whole 6 minutes, with parallel sides 12 and 0, ignoring that the first 2 minutes are constant, gives 1/2 × (12 + 0) × 6 = 36 litres. Correctly finding the rectangle and the first trapezium but forgetting to halve the second trapezium, using (3 + 0) × 1 = 3 instead of 1.5, gives 24 + 22.5 + 3 = 49.5 litres.
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.