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
- (d) 6 — By Pythagoras' theorem, the square of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the other two sides: (√12)² + (√24)² = 12 + 24 = 36. The hypotenuse is √36 = 6 cm. Adding the two side lengths directly instead of squaring them first, treating the theorem as if it were a straight sum of the sides, gives √12 + √24 = 2√3 + 2√6. Multiplying the two squared values, 12 × 24 = 288, instead of adding them, then taking the root, gives √288 = 12√2. Adding the squares correctly to get 36 but forgetting to take the square root at the end leaves 36 as the answer instead of the hypotenuse itself.
- (c) x + 2y = 6 — L has gradient 2, so the perpendicular gradient is −1/2. Substituting (4, 1) into y − 1 = −(1/2)(x − 4): y = −(1/2)x + 2 + 1 = −(1/2)x + 3, so 2y = −x + 6, giving x + 2y = 6. Distractor routes: x − 2y = 2 comes from using gradient +1/2 instead of −1/2, forgetting the negative sign the perpendicular rule needs. x + 2y = 9 comes from swapping the point's coordinates, substituting (1, 4) instead of (4, 1). x + 2y = −2 comes from a sign error distributing the negative gradient over the bracket, computing −(1/2)(x − 4) as −(1/2)x − 2 instead of −(1/2)x + 2.
- (d) 8/5 — Two masses can only be compared once they are in the same unit. Since 1 kg is 1000 g, the recipe needs 1200 g. The recipe's mass is being written as a fraction of Dan's mass, so 1200 goes on the top and 750 on the bottom, giving 1200/750. The highest common factor of the two is 150: 1200 ÷ 150 = 8 and 750 ÷ 150 = 5. The fraction is 8/5, which is greater than 1 because the recipe needs more flour than Dan has.
- (a) 9 — AB is a vertical segment, since A and B share the x-coordinate 1, and its length is the difference in y-coordinates: 5 − 1 = 4. BC is a horizontal segment, since B and C share the y-coordinate 5, and its length is the difference in x-coordinates: 6 − 1 = 5. The total path length is 4 + 5 = 9. 20 comes from multiplying the two lengths, 4 × 5, instead of adding them. 5 is only the length of BC, forgetting to include AB. 4 is only the length of AB, forgetting to include BC.
- (b) £100 — Over 250 games, the expected total winnings are 250 × (1/5) × £12 = £600, since a player wins on 1 of the 5 equally likely sections. The total cost of playing is 250 × £2 = £500. The players' expected profit is the winnings minus the cost: £600 − £500 = £100. Writing £500 is wrong because that is only the total cost of playing, without any winnings included. Writing £600 is wrong because that is only the total expected winnings, without subtracting what was paid to play. Writing £2,500 is wrong because it assumes a win on every single game (250 × £12 = £3,000) instead of using the 1-in-5 probability, then subtracts the cost: £3,000 − £500 = £2,500. The players' expected profit over the 250 games is £100.
- (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.
- (d) 27/80 — Method: write the total as a fraction of a litre, then divide by the number of glasses. Working: 1.35 = 27/20, so each glass holds 27/20 ÷ 4 = 27/80 of a litre. Answer: 27/80. 27/20 comes from converting the total correctly to a fraction but forgetting to divide by the number of glasses. 27/5 comes from multiplying the total by 4 instead of dividing. 17/50 comes from rounding 1.35 ÷ 4 to 0.34 before converting to a fraction.
- (b) 20 — The rate is the gradient: the change in litres divided by the change in time. From 2 to 7 minutes, the tank gains 150 − 50 = 100 litres over 7 − 2 = 5 minutes, so the rate is 100 ÷ 5 = 20 litres per minute. 100 comes from working out the change in litres but forgetting to divide by the change in time. 25 comes from using only the first reading, 50 ÷ 2, and ignoring the second reading entirely. 0.05 comes from dividing the change in time by the change in litres instead of the other way round, 5 ÷ 100.
- (b) 5 years — The recurrence P_{n+1} = 1.1P_n − 30 must be applied once per year, checking after each application whether the population has passed 460. Starting from P_0 = 400: 400 × 1.1 − 30 = 410, so P_1 = 410. Then 410 × 1.1 − 30 = 421, so P_2 = 421. Then 421 × 1.1 − 30 = 433.1, so P_3 = 433.1. Then 433.1 × 1.1 − 30 = 446.41, so P_4 = 446.41, which is still below 460. Then 446.41 × 1.1 − 30 = 461.051, so P_5 = 461.051, the first value above 460. The population first exceeds 460 after 5 complete years. Stopping at P_4 = 446.41 and reporting 4 years reports the last year the population was still below 460, not the first year it was above. Counting the starting value P_0 = 400 as a year of growth makes P_5 the sixth number in the list and gives 6 years, but P_0 is the population before any year has passed, so P_5 is reached after 5 years, not 6. Reading "exceed 460" as "exceed the starting population of 400" instead gives P_1 = 410, already above 400, and 1 year — but the threshold named in the question is 460, not the starting value, so always check every value against the number actually stated in the question.
- (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) 47 — Method: fill the first pair of branches of the frequency tree, then the failures on each branch, then add only the failing end branches. Working: 70% of 200 is 140, so 140 cars were more than 3 years old and 200 − 140 = 60 cars were 3 years old or less. One quarter of the older cars failed: 140 ÷ 4 = 35. The newer branch gives 12 failures. Adding the two failing branches gives 35 + 12 = 47. Answer: 47 of the cars failed the test. The distractors: 35 is the older branch on its own, with the 12 newer failures never added; 62 comes from taking 1 in 4 of all the cars, 200 ÷ 4 = 50, and then adding the 12; 153 is 200 − 47 and counts the cars that passed.
- (d) 8 — Method: write $16^{3/4}$ as $(\sqrt[4]{16})^3$ — the denominator of the index gives the root, the numerator gives the power. Working: $\sqrt[4]{16} = 2$, so $16^{3/4} = 2^3 = 8$. Answer: 8. A candidate who multiplies 16 by 3/4 is treating the index as an ordinary factor and gets 12 — a fractional index is not a multiplier. A candidate who takes the square root instead of the fourth root and then cubes it works out $(\sqrt{16})^3 = 4^3$ and gets 64; the denominator 4 names a fourth root, not a square root. A candidate who takes the fourth root of 16 correctly but stops there, without cubing it, gets 2.
- (a) x = −1.8 and x = 2.8 — Method: the solutions of x² − x − 2 = 3 are the x-coordinates of the points where the curve y = x² − x − 2 meets the line y = 3, read off the grid to 1 decimal place. Working: the curve meets the line y = 3 at approximately x = −1.8 and at x = 2.8. Answer: x ≈ −1.8 and x ≈ 2.8. Distractor refutation: x = −1.0 and x = 2.0 comes from reading where the curve crosses the x-axis (y = 0), solving x² − x − 2 = 0, instead of where it meets the line y = 3. x = −3.0 and x = 4.0 comes from taking the two ends of the drawn curve as the intersection points, instead of finding where it actually crosses the line y = 3. x = 1.8 and x = 2.8 comes from a sign slip on the left-hand intersection, reading it as positive instead of negative.
- (a) 20% — Method: percentage increase = increase ÷ original amount × 100. Working: the increase is 84 − 70 = 14 marks, and 14 ÷ 70 = 0.2, so 0.2 × 100 = 20. Answer: an increase of 20%. The distractors: 14% comes from quoting the 14 mark increase as though marks and per cent were the same thing; 17% comes from dividing the 14 by the new mean 84 instead of by the original 70, which gives 17% to the nearest per cent; 120% is the new mean written as a percentage of the old one, which is the whole of the new mean rather than the increase.
- (c) 15 — The exterior angle is 180° − 156° = 24°, and the number of sides of a regular polygon is 360° divided by the exterior angle, so 360 ÷ 24 = 15. 24° is the exterior angle itself, stopping one step before the final division. 17 comes from finding 15 correctly and then adding 2, muddling the exterior angle rule with the (n − 2) that appears in the interior angle sum formula. 7.5 comes from dividing 180 by the exterior angle instead of 360, using the angles on a straight line rather than the total of the exterior angles of a polygon.
- (a) 4(x + 3) = 20 and 4x + 3 = 11 when x = 2, so the two expressions are not equivalent, because the bracket means the 3 must be added before multiplying by 4. — Substituting x = 2: 4(x + 3) = 4 × 5 = 20, and 4x + 3 = 8 + 3 = 11. The two values are different, and expanding 4(x + 3) algebraically gives 4x + 12, which can never equal 4x + 3 (that would require 12 = 3) — so the two expressions are never equivalent, for any value of x. The option claiming they become equal for a larger x is wrong: 4x + 12 = 4x + 3 has no solution at all. The option claiming they are equivalent because they share the terms 4x and 3 ignores that the bracket changes the constant term. The option that calculates 4(x + 3) as 11 ignores the bracket completely, applying the 4 only to the x term.
- (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) £26.25 — First multiply the base and height: 2.4 × 1.75 = 4.2. The area of the triangular sail is half of that: half of 4.2 is 2.1 m². Then multiply by the cost per m²: 2.1 × £12.50 = £26.25. £52.50 forgets to halve in the area formula, giving an area of 4.2 m² and doubling the true cost. £30.00 multiplies the base length by the cost per m² (2.4 × £12.50) without ever finding the area. £25.00 rounds the area to 2 m² before multiplying by the cost, losing accuracy.
- (c) £9.70 — F = 2.50 + 1.20 × 6 = 2.50 + 7.20 = £9.70. £7.20 comes from forgetting to add the £2.50 fixed charge. £10.20 comes from adding the 2.50 to the number of miles before multiplying by 1.20, 1.20 × (6 + 2.50). £22.20 comes from adding the fixed charge and the rate together first and then multiplying by the miles, (2.50 + 1.20) × 6.
- (b) (−2, 0) — Method: a graph meets the x-axis where the y-value is 0, so setting y = 0 turns the equation into a linear equation in x. Working: 0 = 3x + 6 gives 3x = −6, so x = (−6) ÷ 3 = −2 and the meeting point is (−2, 0). Answer: (−2, 0). The distractors: (2, 0) comes from solving 3x = −6 and then dropping the minus sign from the result; (0, 6) is the y-axis crossing, found by substituting x = 0 instead of y = 0; (6, 0) comes from reading the constant 6 straight off as the x-coordinate, without dividing by 3 and without changing its sign.
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.