⭕ Circle theorems practice

Answer key

1. (b) 13 — Using the sum of interior angles formula, (n − 2) × 180° = 1980°, so n − 2 = 1980 ÷ 180 = 11, and n = 11 + 2 = 13. 11 stops after the division, forgetting to add 2 back to find n. 15 adds 2 twice by mistake, giving 11 + 2 + 2. 22 divides 1980 by 90 instead of 180.
2. (b) 63° — Method: a tangent meets the radius drawn to the point of contact at a right angle, so triangle OPT has a 90° angle at T; the three angles of the triangle then sum to 180°. Working: angle OTP = 90°, angle OPT = 27°, so angle POT = 180 − 90 − 27 = 63 degrees. Answer: 63°. The tangent-radius angle is a fixed 90°, not something to assume equal to another angle in the triangle, and the three angles of ANY triangle sum to 180°, never 360°: that total belongs to a quadrilateral, not a triangle.
3. (c) 8 — Method: the exterior angles of a polygon add up to 360°, so divide 360° by the size of one exterior angle. Working: 360 ÷ 45 = 8. Answer: 8 sides. A candidate who divides into a half turn instead of a full turn, working out 180 ÷ 45, gets 4. A candidate who reads off the given exterior angle as if it were the number of sides gets 45. A candidate who subtracts instead of dividing, working out 360 − 45, gets 315.
4. (d) Opposite angles in a cyclic quadrilateral sum to 180° — ABCD is a cyclic quadrilateral, and angle ABC and angle ADC are a pair of opposite angles in it — they don't sit next to each other around the quadrilateral. The theorem that fixes the sum of a cyclic quadrilateral's opposite angles at 180° is exactly the one needed here. The other three theorems don't apply to this figure at all: the angle-in-a-semicircle theorem gives a 90° angle only when one side is a diameter, and no diameter is mentioned; the angle-at-the-centre theorem needs a centre point and an inscribed angle on the same arc, and no centre is given here; the tangent–radius theorem gives a 90° angle only where a tangent line touches the circle, and there is no tangent in this figure. Only the cyclic-quadrilateral theorem fits what is actually drawn.
5. (a) 24 cm — The line from the centre to the midpoint of a chord is perpendicular to the chord, so triangle OMA has a right angle at M. By Pythagoras' theorem, AM² = OA² − OM² = 169 − 25 = 144, so AM = 12 cm. AB is twice AM, since M is the midpoint: AB = 2 × 12 = 24 cm. Finding AM = 12 cm correctly but forgetting to double it for the full chord gives 12 cm. Working out 169 − 25 = 144 and forgetting to take the square root gives 144 cm. Subtracting first and then doubling the wrong way, (13 − 5) × 2, gives 16 cm. Doubling AM after finding it correctly is the step that's missing from all three — do it, and you get 24 cm.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (a) 1260° — The sum of the interior angles of a polygon with n sides is (n − 2) × 180°. For a nonagon, n = 9, so the sum is (9 − 2) × 180° = 7 × 180° = 1260°. 1620° uses 9 × 180° without subtracting 2 from n first. 140° is the size of a single interior angle of a regular nonagon (1260° ÷ 9), not the sum of all nine. 1440° uses (n − 1) × 180° = 8 × 180° instead of (n − 2) × 180°.
9. (c) 72° — Method: opposite angles in a cyclic quadrilateral always sum to 180°. Working: angle DAB and angle BCD are opposite angles of the cyclic quadrilateral ABCD, so angle BCD = 180 − 108 = 72 degrees. Answer: 72°. Opposite angles in a cyclic quadrilateral are SUPPLEMENTARY, not equal, so do not simply copy the given angle; and do not subtract from 360°, which is the rule for angles round a point, or confuse this with the angle-in-a-semicircle theorem, which gives a fixed 90° that has nothing to do with this quadrilateral.
10. (c) 1/4 — A full turn at the centre of a circle is 360°, so a sector's fraction of the circle is its angle divided by 360°: 90 ÷ 360 = 1/4. 1/2 would be the fraction for a sector with an angle of 180°, not 90°. 3/4 is the fraction of the rest of the circle, the major sector left over from the 270° that is not part of this sector. 1/8 would be the fraction for a sector with an angle of 45°, half of 90°.
11. (c) Tangent-chord angle = angle in the alternate segment. — This diagram has a diameter AC, a centre O, and a cyclic quadrilateral ABCD, but no tangent anywhere in it. 'Angle in a semicircle = 90°' applies directly, because AC is a diameter. 'Opposite angles of a cyclic quadrilateral sum to 180°' applies directly, because ABCD is a cyclic quadrilateral. 'Angle at the centre = twice angle at circumference' applies directly, because O is given as the centre of the circle. The tangent-chord fact relates the angle between a tangent and a chord to an angle elsewhere in the circle, and since this diagram has no tangent, there is nothing in it for that fact to describe — so it is the one theorem that does not apply here.
12. (b) 58° — Method: the angle at the centre is TWICE the angle at the circumference when both stand on the same arc. Working: angle AOC is the angle at the centre standing on arc AC, and angle ABC is the angle at the circumference standing on the same arc AC, with B on the major arc, so angle AOC = 2 × angle ABC. Rearranging, angle ABC = 116 ÷ 2 = 58 degrees. Answer: 58°. Halve the centre angle, do not double it, and use the angle AOC exactly as given, 116°: you do not need its reflex angle here, because B sits on the major arc, which is precisely the arrangement the theorem is stated for.
13. (b) 80° — Method: opposite angles of a cyclic quadrilateral sum to 180°, so form and solve an equation for x, then substitute back to find angle DAB. Working: (2x + 10) + (3x − 5) = 180, so 5x + 5 = 180, x = 35, and angle DAB = 2(35) + 10 = 80°. Using 360° instead of 180° as the total (as if the two angles were the whole circle rather than a pair of opposite angles) gives x = 71 and angle DAB = 152°; solving correctly for x but reporting x itself instead of substituting it back into 2x + 10 gives 35°; and mishandling the signs when combining the two expressions, using (2x + 10) + (3x + 5) = 180 instead of (2x + 10) + (3x − 5) = 180, gives x = 33 and angle DAB = 76°. Opposite angles of a cyclic quadrilateral — not adjacent ones — are the pair that sums to 180°.
14. (b) Yes — OA = OC (radii), so the base angles are equal. — Method: check the definition of a radius and the isosceles triangle property the step relies on. Working: every radius of a circle has the same length, so OA = OC regardless of where A and C sit on the circle — this alone makes triangle OAC isosceles, and the base angles opposite the two equal sides, angle OAC and angle OCA, must be equal. The verdict is Yes, for exactly that reason. Claiming OA and OC are only equal if they are drawn to 'the very same point' misunderstands what a radius is — A and C can be any two points on the circle and OA still equals OC. Claiming the triangle is isosceles because angle AOC is 90° reverses the logic: nothing in the step has fixed angle AOC at 90°, and even if it had, that alone would not explain why OA = OC. Claiming the triangle would need to be equilateral confuses isosceles (two equal sides) with equilateral (three equal sides) — only two sides, OA and OC, are being compared here.
15. (a) 105° — The interior angles of a pentagon add up to (5 − 2) × 180° = 540°. Subtracting the three known angles, 540 − 100 − 110 − 120 = 210°, and this 210° is shared equally between the two angles marked x°, so each one is 210 ÷ 2 = 105°. 210° stops one step early, giving the total of the two unknown angles instead of one of them. 108° is the interior angle of a regular pentagon, which does not apply here since this pentagon's angles are not all equal. 55° comes from halving one of the given angles, 110°, instead of halving the remaining total.
16. (c) 32 — Method: alternate angles between parallel lines are equal, so 2x + 10 = 74. Working: subtracting 10 from both sides gives 2x = 64; dividing by 2 gives x = 32. Answer: x = 32. A candidate who forgets to subtract 10 first and divides 74 by 2 directly gets 37. A candidate who treats the angles as co-interior instead of alternate, so that the two expressions add to 180° rather than being equal, gets 48 after solving. A candidate who makes a sign error and treats the equation as 2x equalling 10 minus 74 instead of 74 minus 10 gets −32.
17. (b) 10 — Corresponding angles are equal, so 5x + 4 = 3x + 24. Subtracting 3x from both sides gives 2x + 4 = 24, then subtracting 4 gives 2x = 20, so x = 10. 14 comes from adding the constants, 4 + 24, instead of subtracting them when rearranging. 19 comes from treating the angles as co-interior (summing to 180°): 5x + 4 + 3x + 24 = 180 gives 8x = 152, so x = 19. 20 correctly reaches 2x = 20 but stops without dividing by 2.
18. (a) Reflex + non-reflex angle BOD = 360°, so 2a + 2c = 360°. — A correct proof must build in a strictly logical order: the reflex and non-reflex angles at O, which together make a complete turn about the centre, must be added to 360° before 2a and 2c can be combined and divided. The statement 'Reflex + non-reflex angle BOD = 360°, so 2a + 2c = 360°' is the only one that follows directly from having 2a and 2c already established, and it is exactly what is needed before the final division step. Jumping straight to 'Divide by 2 throughout to get a + c = 180°' skips the step that justifies why 2a + 2c equals 360° in the first place — there is nothing yet to divide. Repeating 'Angle BOD is 2a and 2c, by the centre theorem' does not move the proof forward at all, since that fact has already been established in the sentence given. Introducing 'OB = OD are radii, so triangle OBD is isosceles' brings in an unrelated triangle and an unrelated method that plays no part in this particular proof.