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
- (b) 30 — Method: 12% of an amount is 12/100 of it, so find 1% by dividing by 100 and then multiply by 12. Working: 1% of 250 is 250 ÷ 100 = 2.5, and 12% is 2.5 × 12 = 30. Answer: 30 seats. The distractors: 3 comes from writing 12% as 0.012 instead of 0.12, giving 0.012 × 250 = 3; 25 comes from finding 10% of the seats and stopping there; 24 comes from counting 12 seats for each whole hundred, 12 + 12 = 24, and ignoring the remaining 50 seats.
- (d) Reflect in the y-axis, +2 in x; roots 3, −2 — f(2 − x) is zero exactly when 2 − x equals one of f's roots: 2 − x = −1 or 2 − x = 4. Solving each correctly (x = 2 − (−1) = 3, and x = 2 − 4 = −2) gives the new roots x = 3 and x = −2. This is the same as reflecting y = f(x) in the y-axis to get f(−x), then translating 2 units in the positive x-direction to get f(−(x − 2)) = f(2 − x). Solving 2 − x = k as x = k − 2 instead of x = 2 − k is a sign slip when rearranging, and gives x = −3 and x = 2. Translating +2 in x with no reflection at all uses f(x − 2), whose roots are the original roots plus 2: x = 1 and x = 6 — this misses the reflection completely. Assuming 'no overall change' wrongly treats a reflection-and-translation pair as always cancelling out, when here the roots genuinely move, from x = −1 and x = 4 to x = 3 and x = −2.
- (d) 20 — Gradient = change in T ÷ change in t = (140 − 60) ÷ (6 − 2) = 80 ÷ 4 = 20. A student who subtracts in the wrong order gets −20. A student who divides 80 by 2 instead of 4 gets 40. A student who wrongly treats the line as passing through the origin and uses the point (2, 60) on its own gets 60 ÷ 2 = 30.
- (b) $\binom{-6}{10}$ — Translating twice by the same vector doubles both components: 2 × $\binom{-3}{5}$ = $\binom{-6}{10}$. $\binom{-3}{5}$ forgets to double the vector at all, giving only one translation's worth. $\binom{-9}{15}$ trebles the vector instead of doubling it. $\binom{-6}{5}$ doubles only the top number and forgets to double the bottom number.
- (d) 56 — Method: count the trials over the whole period first, then multiply the number of trials by the probability. Working: 4 weeks is 4 × 7 = 28 days, and at 25 trains a day that is 25 × 28 = 700 trains. The expected number of late trains is 700 × 0.08 = 56. Answer: about 56 late trains over the 4 weeks. The distractors: 2 is the expected number for a single day, 25 × 0.08 = 2, with the 28 days never brought in; 14 uses one week instead of four, 25 × 7 × 0.08 = 14; 644 is 700 − 56 and counts the trains expected to be on time.
- (a) x = 0 gives y = −20: a negative number sold — The y-intercept is the value the line predicts when x = 0: y = 3 × 0 − 20 = −20. A kiosk cannot sell a negative number of ice creams, so this is not a sensible estimate. The 3 in the equation is the gradient, not the intercept, so an option claiming x = 0 gives y = 3 has swapped the two numbers around — substituting x = 0 makes the 3x term equal 0, leaving −20, not 3. The danger of extrapolating to very high temperatures is a real issue with this line, but it is a different issue from the y-intercept, so it does not answer this question. And whether x = 0 could occur on a trading day is beside the point: the model still makes that prediction, and it is the prediction itself, −20, that is impossible.
- (d) 26 and 27 — Find the two consecutive perfect squares either side of 700: 26² = 676 and 27² = 729. Since 676 < 700 < 729, √700 lies between 26 and 27. Answering 7 and 8 comes from stripping the two zeros off 700 and using the 7 itself as the size of the root, instead of comparing 700 with the perfect squares around it — dividing the number under the root by 100 divides the root by 10, so the digits do not simply carry across. Answering 25 and 26 comes from checking 25² = 625, seeing that it is less than 700, and stopping there without also checking the square directly above it. Answering 35 and 36 comes from halving 700 to 350 and then treating that halved value as if it were ten times the true root, drifting into the thirties instead of the twenties.
- (c) A reflection in the y-axis — Replacing x with −x reflects the graph in the y-axis: each point (x, y) maps to (−x, y). Reflecting the OUTPUT instead, y = −f(x), gives a reflection in the x-axis — that is a different function. Combining both reflections gives a rotation of 180° about the origin, and reflecting in the line y = x swaps the x- and y-values, which is what produces the inverse function, not f(−x). Check first which side of f the minus sign sits on.
- (c) The tangent is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. — Method: at any point where a distance–time graph is momentarily neither increasing nor decreasing, the tangent to the graph at that point is horizontal, and the gradient of a horizontal line is 0 — this is the instantaneous rate of change at that instant. Working: since the hiker's distance is neither increasing nor decreasing at t = 45 minutes, the tangent there is horizontal, so its gradient is 0. Claiming the tangent is vertical, with an undefined gradient, is the opposite of what the stem says: a vertical tangent would mean the distance was changing infinitely fast at that instant, not that it had stopped changing, and on a distance–time graph it cannot happen at all. Reading the gradient as 45, the time value given in the stem, mistakes a value used to LOCATE the point for the rate of change AT that point. Claiming the gradient cannot be found without also knowing the distance at t = 45 minutes overlooks that 'momentarily stationary' already tells you the rate of change directly, without needing to read any distance value at all. Whenever a stem tells you a quantity is momentarily not changing, that is telling you the instantaneous rate of change directly — it is 0, and no further data is needed to find it.
- (a) the lens-shaped region where the two circles overlap — The region within 30 km of the ship is a circle of radius 30 km around the ship; the region within 20 km of the lighthouse is a circle of radius 20 km around the lighthouse. Since 30 + 20 = 50 km is more than the 40 km between them, and 30 − 20 = 10 km is less than 40 km, the two circles genuinely overlap, in a lens-shaped region where both conditions hold at once. "the whole smaller circle, since it fits inside the larger one" would only be true if the 40 km distance between the centres were small enough for one circle to swallow the other, which it is not here. "no overlap — 30 km and 20 km don't add to 40 km" wrongly assumes the two radii must add up to exactly the distance between the centres for an overlap to exist; any total greater than that distance is enough. "a straight strip, exactly halfway between the two" confuses this with an equidistant locus, which is a different problem from the one asked here.
- (b) £100 — Method: find the expected number of wins, turn that into the expected pay out, then compare it with what the games cost. Working: the expected number of wins is 200 × 0.15 = 30. Each win pays £10, so the expected pay out is 30 × 10 = 300 pounds. Playing 200 times at £2 a go costs 200 × 2 = 400 pounds. The expected loss is 400 − 300 = 100 pounds. Answer: Amir should expect to be about £100 down. The distractors: £300 is the expected winnings on their own, with the cost of playing never taken off; £400 is the total cost of playing, with the winnings never taken off; £700 comes from adding the two totals, 400 + 300 = 700, instead of subtracting one from the other.
- (c) 5/11 — Let x = 0.45 recurring, so x = 0.454545... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 45.454545... . Subtracting the original x removes the recurring part exactly, because it lines up digit for digit: 100x − x = 45.454545... − 0.454545... = 45, so 99x = 45, giving x = 45/99 = 5/11. Treating the decimal as if it terminated at two places gives 45/100 = 9/20, which is only 0.45 and drops the repeating part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x — using 100x − 10x = 90x = 45 — is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit repeating block, and gives x = 45/90 = 1/2. Making an arithmetic slip in the numerator, 45 − 1 = 44 instead of 45, gives 44/99 = 4/9.
- (b) Student B's — narrower strips fit the curve more closely. — The trapezium rule replaces the curve with straight-line segments; the narrower each strip, the more closely its straight edge follows the curve, so Student B's estimate with 8 narrower strips is more likely to be closer to the true area. Reasoning from the number of arithmetic steps rather than from how well the straight lines fit the curve gives the wrong claim that Student A makes fewer rounding errors. Believing the trapezium rule is exact, rather than an estimate that improves with narrower strips, gives the wrong claim that the two are always the same. Believing wider strips smooth out the curve better, rather than following it less closely, gives the wrong claim in favour of Student A's wider strips.
- (a) 4 — Method: find the constant of proportionality from the pair given, write the equation, then substitute the new value of y and solve. Working: k = 21 ÷ 7 = 3, so y = 3x; putting y = 12 gives 12 = 3x, and x = 12 ÷ 3 = 4. Answer: 4. The distractors: 36 comes from multiplying by the constant instead of dividing by it, 12 × 3, which is the proportion set up upside down; 84 comes from multiplying 12 by the 7 from the first pair, using a value of x as though it were the constant; 9 comes from working out 12 − 3, treating the equation as y = x + 3 rather than y = 3x.
- (b) trapezium — A quadrilateral with exactly one pair of parallel sides is a trapezium; field ABCD has AB parallel to DC and no other pair of parallel sides, so trapezium is correct. Parallelogram requires BOTH pairs of opposite sides to be parallel, but the plan says only AB and DC are parallel. Rhombus requires all four sides to be equal in length, which is not stated here. A kite is defined by two pairs of adjacent equal sides, not by having a pair of parallel sides, so it does not match this description either.
- (b) 4 — Method: form the equation 30 + 25h = 130, where h is the number of hours, then solve for h. Working: subtract the call-out fee from the total bill: 25h = 130 − 30 = 100. Divide by the hourly rate: h = 100 ÷ 25 = 4. Answer: 4 hours. 5.2 comes from dividing the whole bill by the hourly rate without subtracting the fixed fee first, 130 ÷ 25. 3.5 comes from swapping the fee and the rate, subtracting the rate from the bill and dividing by the fee, (130 − 25) ÷ 30. 6.4 comes from adding the call-out fee to the bill instead of subtracting it, before dividing by the rate, (130 + 30) ÷ 25.
- (c) 40 cm — First find the real pitch length using Plan A's scale: 8 × 1000 = 8000 cm. Now find its length on Plan B using Plan B's scale: 8000 ÷ 200 = 40 cm. Assuming both plans use the same scale and leaving the length as 8 cm ignores that Plan B has a different scale. Using the ratio of the two scales upside down, 200 ÷ 1000 = 0.2, then 8 × 0.2 = 1.6, gives 1.6 cm — Plan B is drawn to a larger scale than Plan A, so lengths on it should be bigger, not smaller. Dividing by 2000 instead of 200 gives 4 cm, ten times too small.
- (c) 10.4 cm — Method: rearrange Area = (1/2)ab sin C to make the unknown side the subject: b = 2 × Area ÷ (a × sin C). Working: b = 2 × 36 ÷ (9 × sin 50°) = 10.4 cm (1 d.p.). Answer: 10.4 cm. Forgetting to double the area before dividing gives b = 36 ÷ (9 × sin 50°) = 5.2 cm; using cos 50° instead of sin 50° gives b = 2 × 36 ÷ (9 × cos 50°) = 12.4 cm; and multiplying by sin 50° instead of dividing by it — inverting the rearrangement — gives b = 2 × 36 × sin 50° ÷ 9 = 6.1 cm. Always double the area before dividing, and check whether the unknown should be multiplied or divided by sin C once you've rearranged.
- (c) 14.1 — Method: in x² + y² = r² the right-hand side is the square of the radius, so take its square root to find the radius, then double the radius because the diameter is twice the radius. Working: r² = 50, so r = √50 = 7.07106…, and the diameter is 2 × 7.07106… = 14.14213…, which is 14.1 correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 14.1. The distractors: 7.1 is the radius, worked out correctly but never doubled, so it answers a question about the radius rather than the diameter; 100.0 comes from doubling the 50 on the right-hand side, treating r² as though it were already the radius; 25.0 comes from halving the 50, treating r² as though it were already the diameter.
- (c) 4x − 3 — ff(x) means f(f(x)): substitute f(x) into f in place of x. f(f(x)) = 2 × f(x) − 1 = 2 × (2x − 1) − 1. Expanding the bracket: 2 × (2x − 1) = 4x − 2. Combining the constant terms: −2 − 1 = −3, so f(f(x)) = 4x − 3. Writing 4x − 2 comes from expanding 2(2x − 1) correctly to get 4x − 2, then forgetting to subtract the outer 1 at all. Writing 4x² − 4x + 1 comes from reading ff(x) as f(x) multiplied by itself, (2x − 1)(2x − 1) = 4x² − 4x + 1, instead of substituting f(x) into f. Writing 4x − 1 comes from doubling the coefficient of x in the original rule directly, without actually substituting f(x) into f at all.
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.