🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (d) −2 — y = f(x) − 6 is f(x) shifted down by 6, so every y-value on the graph decreases by 6. At x = 0, f(0) = 4, so the new y-value is 4 − 6 = −2. Adding 6 instead of subtracting gives 10; writing down the shift itself, −6, or leaving the original value 4 unchanged both skip the translation altogether.
2. (a) 3 — y = f(x + 2) is f(x) translated 2 units to the LEFT (inside the bracket, adding moves the graph in the negative x-direction). The root moves with the whole graph: 5 − 2 = 3. Moving right instead of left gives 7; assuming a bracket shift leaves the root unchanged gives 5; writing down the shift amount 2 itself skips the translation altogether.
3. (a) −1 — Reflecting y = sin x in the x-axis gives y = −sin x, so g(x) = −sin x. Since sin 90° = 1, g(90) = −1. Reading sin 90° = 1 and forgetting to apply the reflection gives 1. Misreading the angle as 0° instead of 90° gives sin 0° = 0, so 0. Confusing sin 90° with sin 30° = 0.5, then reflecting it, gives −0.5.
4. (d) line 2 — Line 1 correctly represents three consecutive integers using n. Line 2 adds them: n + (n + 1) + (n + 2). Collecting terms: the n-terms give 3n, and the constants give 1 + 2 = 3, so the correct sum is 3n + 3, not 3n + 2 as Line 2 states — this is the first error, an arithmetic slip in collecting the constant terms. Lines 3 and 4 both follow correctly from Line 2's incorrect result, but that result itself is wrong: the true sum, 3n + 3 = 3(n + 1), is a multiple of 3 for every whole number n. Check the working of each line against what came before it, in order, rather than judging whether the final conclusion feels right — an error that flips the conclusion can sit several lines before the line that states it.
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (b) Q was faster on average and more consistent — Method: compare the medians for the average and the interquartile ranges for the spread, remembering that a shorter time is faster and a smaller interquartile range means more consistent. Working: the median for class Q is 35 seconds against 38 seconds for class P, so class Q was faster on average; the interquartile range for class P is 46 − 24 = 22 seconds and for class Q it is 44 − 30 = 14 seconds, so class Q's times are more tightly grouped. Answer: class Q was faster on average and more consistent. The distractors: calling Q slower comes from comparing the lower quartiles, 30 against 24, as though a quartile were the average; calling Q less consistent comes from using the gap between the median and the upper quartile as the spread, 44 − 35 = 9 against 46 − 38 = 8, instead of the full interquartile range; the statement that Q was both slower and less consistent comes from making both of those mistakes together.
8. (c) Week 16, £37,000 — y = f(x − 6) − 8000 combines a horizontal translation of 6 units RIGHT (subtracting 6 inside the brackets) with a vertical translation of £8000 DOWN (subtracting 8000 outside). Applying both to the maximum (10, 45000): 10 + 6 = 16, so the new maximum is in week 16. And 45000 − 8000 = 37000, so the maximum weekly profit is £37,000.
9. (d) 18 minutes — Method: the lower quartile is the 80 ÷ 4 = 20th value and the upper quartile is the 3 × 80 ÷ 4 = 60th value; locate each inside its class by linear interpolation, then subtract. Working: the 20th value lies between the running totals 8 and 28, so it is in the class 10 ≤ t < 20, which holds 20 journeys across 10 minutes, and it is the 20 − 8 = 12th of them, giving 10 + (12 ÷ 20) × 10 = 16 minutes; the 60th value lies between the running totals 52 and 72, so it is in the class 30 ≤ t < 40, which also holds 20 journeys across 10 minutes, and it is the 60 − 52 = 8th of them, giving 30 + (8 ÷ 20) × 10 = 34 minutes; subtracting, 34 − 16 = 18. Answer: an estimated interquartile range of 18 minutes. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from taking the lower boundaries of the two quartile classes, 30 − 10, which locates the classes but never the values inside them; 40 minutes comes from subtracting the two positions, 60 − 20, instead of the two times; 22 minutes comes from interpolating downwards from each upper boundary rather than upwards from each lower boundary, giving 20 − 6 = 14 and 40 − 4 = 36.
10. (a) 70 — Method: two linked steps. Find the expected number of billing calls first, then take the 35% of those, because the 35% is quoted for billing calls only. Working: 40% of 500 is 200 billing calls. 35% of 200 is 70 calls. Answer: you would expect 70 calls. The distractors: 200 stops after the first step and gives the billing calls, forgetting that only some of them are dealt with quickly; 175 is 35% of 500, applying the quick response rate to every call the centre takes rather than to the billing calls only; 375 comes from adding 40% and 35% to get 75% and taking 75% of 500, which treats two stages of one journey as separate outcomes to be added.
11. (d) 44 — Method: a cumulative frequency counts everything below a value, so the frequency of a class is the running total at the top of the class minus the running total at the bottom of it. Working: the running total below 20 kg is 96 and the running total below 10 kg is 52, so the number of boxes in the class 10 ≤ m < 20 is 96 − 52 = 44. Answer: 44 boxes. The distractors: 96 comes from quoting the running total at 20 kg itself, which counts every box below 20 kg rather than only those in this class; 34 comes from subtracting the wrong pair, 52 − 18, which gives the class 5 ≤ m < 10 instead; 54 comes from subtracting from the grand total, 150 − 96, which gives the boxes of 20 kg or more.
12. (b) (2, 6) — y = f(x − 3) translates y = f(x) horizontally by 3 units to the RIGHT — inside the brackets, subtracting moves the graph in the positive x-direction. Turning point (−1, 6) → (−1 + 3, 6) = (2, 6). The common slip is to move LEFT instead, since the sign inside the bracket is negative — that gives (−4, 6). Changing the y-coordinate instead of the x-coordinate, as in (−1, 3) or (−1, 9), treats this as a vertical shift, which y = f(x − 3) is not.
13. (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.
14. (b) 55 — Method: count the classes that lie wholly above 8 minutes, then use linear interpolation for the class that 8 cuts through, assuming the delays in that class are spread evenly. Working: the class 10 ≤ d < 20 lies wholly above 8 and holds 25 buses; the value 8 lies in the class 5 ≤ d < 10, which is 5 minutes wide and holds 75 buses, and the part above 8 runs from 8 to 10, a width of 2, so the estimated share is (2 ÷ 5) × 75 = 30 buses; the estimate is 30 + 25 = 55. Answer: about 55 refunds. The distractors: 100 comes from adding the whole of the class 5 ≤ d < 10, 75 + 25, and so refunding buses only 5 minutes late; 25 comes from using only the class 10 ≤ d < 20 and ignoring the part class that 8 minutes cuts through; 70 comes from taking the part of the class from 5 up to 8 instead of from 8 up to 10, giving (3 ÷ 5) × 75 = 45 and then 45 + 25.
15. (a) It is 2(w + (w + 3)) = 4w + 6, not 2w + 3. — The perimeter of a rectangle is twice the width plus twice the length: 2 × w + 2 × (w + 3) = 2w + 2w + 6 = 4w + 6, so the gardener's 2w + 3 is wrong. Writing w + (w + 3) = 2w + 3 forgets to double the sides at all, only adding one width and one length once. Writing 4(w + 3) = 4w + 12 wrongly treats all four sides as equal to the length, as if the garden were a square. Writing 3w + 6 comes from doubling the length correctly but adding the width only once instead of doubling it too.
16. (d) 3 — Method: the height of a bar is its frequency density, frequency ÷ class width, so work out both heights and divide one by the other. Working: the class 0 ≤ t < 4 is 4 minutes wide and holds 30 visits, so its frequency density is 30 ÷ 4 = 7.5 per minute; the class 4 ≤ t < 20 is 16 minutes wide and holds 40 visits, so its frequency density is 40 ÷ 16 = 2.5 per minute; dividing the heights, 7.5 ÷ 2.5 = 3. Answer: the first bar is 3 times as tall. The distractors: 0.75 comes from comparing the frequencies, 30 ÷ 40, as though the frequencies were the heights, which is the mistake the unequal widths are there to expose; 4 comes from comparing the class widths, 16 ÷ 4, instead of the heights; 5 comes from subtracting the two frequency densities, 7.5 − 2.5, which answers how much taller rather than how many times taller.
17. (d) 4.521 — x₁ = √(3 × 4 + 7) = √19 = 4.358898944. x₂ = √(3 × 4.358898944 + 7) = √20.076696833 = 4.480702716. x₃ = √(3 × 4.480702716 + 7) = √20.442108148 = 4.521294964, which rounds to 4.521. Mislabelling the starting value x₀ as x₁, so that the working stops one iteration too early, reports the true x₂ = 4.480702716, which rounds to 4.481. Working out one iteration too many reports the true x₄ = √(3 × 4.521294964 + 7) = 4.534741987, which rounds to 4.535. Applying the formula in the wrong order, calculating √(3xₙ) + 7 at every step instead of √(3xₙ + 7), gives, from x₀ = 4: √12 + 7 = 10.464101615, then √(3 × 10.464101615) + 7 = 12.602883619, then √(3 × 12.602883619) + 7 = 13.148873950, which rounds to 13.149.
18. (c) 70 — Method: estimate the median from the cumulative frequency table by interpolation: find its position, n ÷ 2, locate the class it falls in, then add the fraction of the way through that class (adjusted for the cumulative frequency reached before it) to the class's lower boundary. Working: there are 180 riders, so the median is at position 180 ÷ 2 = 90. Before the class 60 ≤ d < 80 the cumulative frequency is 60, and by the end of it, 120, so the 90th rider falls in this class; its frequency is 120 − 60 = 60 and its width is 80 − 60 = 20. The extra distance needed into the class is 90 − 60 = 30, and 30 ÷ 60 × 20 = 10, so the median is 60 + 10 = 70. Answer: the estimated median distance is 70 km. Watch which numbers the interpolation actually uses: reading off just the class's lower boundary, 60, ignores how far into the class the 90th rider falls; using the target position, 90, as the extra distance instead of subtracting the 60 riders already counted before the class gives 90 ÷ 60 × 20 = 30, so 60 + 30 = 90, overshooting by treating the whole position as if none of it had already been counted; and using the total number of riders, 180, instead of half of it as the target position lands in the very last class, giving an estimate of 130 km — further than any rider is known to have ridden by that point in the table.