🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (b) 1/3 — Method: the first sweet has already been taken and it was red, so work out the second probability from what is actually left in the bag. Working: one red sweet has gone, so 3 red sweets remain out of 9 sweets altogether, giving 3/9. Dividing the numerator and the denominator by 3 gives 1/3. Answer: the probability is 1/3. The distractors: 2/5 is 4/10, the probability for the first draw used again, which is only right if the first sweet is put back; 3/10 takes one off the red count but leaves the total at 10, updating half of the fraction; 4/9 takes one off the total but leaves the red count at 4, updating the other half of the fraction.
2. (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.
3. (a) 1/3 — Method: since OABC is a parallelogram, B = OA + OC = a + c. M = (1/2)c, since M is the midpoint of OC. Since AN is twice NC, N is 2/3 of the way along AC from A, so N = a + 2/3(c − a) = (1/3)a + (2/3)c. Working: MN = N − M = (1/3)a + (1/6)c, and MB = B − M = a + (1/2)c. Comparing term by term, 1/3 × (a + (1/2)c) = (1/3)a + (1/6)c, which matches MN exactly. Answer: k = 1/3, so M, N and B lie on a straight line. Giving 2/3 instead is the scalar linking N to B (NB = (2/3)MB), not M to N; giving 1/6 is just MN's c-coefficient read off on its own, without comparing it to MB's c-coefficient at all; and giving 3 is the scalar the wrong way up — it is MB that equals 3 × MN, not the other way round, since MN = k × MB was what was asked for. Always match the direction of the scalar to the vectors exactly as the question states them.
4. (a) False — 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 12, not 8x − 3. — Expand the bracket by multiplying both terms by 4: 4 × 2x = 8x and 4 × (−3) = −12, so 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 12, which is not 8x − 3 — the student is wrong. Saying 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 3 comes from multiplying only the 2x by 4 and copying the −3 across unchanged. Saying 4(2x − 3) = 2x − 12 comes from multiplying only the −3 by 4 and leaving 2x unmultiplied. Claiming it is true because both expressions are linear ignores that equivalence depends on the actual coefficients, not the type of expression.
5. (a) 7/16 — Method: the adult picked is known to have a driving licence, so the sample space is everyone with a licence; divide the number of men with a licence by that total. Working: 45 women and 35 men have a licence, so 80 adults have one. The men with a licence give 35/80, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 5 gives 7/16. Answer: the probability is 7/16. The distractors: 7/10 is 35/50, the probability that an adult has a licence given that he is a man, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round; 7/24 is 35/120, dividing by all 120 adults surveyed instead of by the 80 who have a licence; 5/12 is 50/120, the probability that an adult picked from the whole survey is a man, which uses none of the licence information the question supplies.
6. (a) 4.897 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side of the formula to get x₁, then feed each new value back in, keeping the whole calculator display every time and rounding only at the very end. Working: x₁ = √(5 × 2 + 2) = √12 = 3.46410…; x₂ = √(5 × 3.46410… + 2) = √19.32050… = 4.39551…; x₃ = √(5 × 4.39551… + 2) = √23.97755… = 4.89668…, which is 4.897 correct to 3 decimal places. Answer: 4.897. The distractors: 4.396 is x₂, written down by a candidate who counts the starting value x₀ as the first iterate and so stops one use of the formula early; 3.464 is x₁, the value after using the formula only once; 5.146 is x₄, one use of the formula too many — the mirror image of the first slip, made by a candidate who labels the first value worked out as x₀ rather than as x₁ and so runs the count a step long.
7. (d) 3.425 — x₁ = ∛(6 × 3 + 20) = ∛38 = 3.3620 (unrounded, 3.36198...). x₂ = ∛(6 × 3.3620 + 20) = ∛40.172 = 3.425 (3 d.p.). Choosing 3.362 stops at x₁ instead of continuing to x₂. Choosing 2.722 leaves out the '+ 20' inside the root, working out ∛(6 × 3.3620) = ∛20.172 = 2.722. Choosing 0.556 subtracts 20 instead of adding it, working out ∛(6 × 3.3620 − 20) = ∛0.172 = 0.556.
8. (d) 7/18 — Method: the pupil picked is known to study French, so the sample space shrinks to the 18 French students; divide the number who study both languages by 18. Working: 7 of the pupils study both French and German, and all 7 of them are among the 18 French students, so the probability is 7/18, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 7/18. The distractors: 7/30 divides by the whole class, keeping the restricted numerator but the full denominator; 1/2 is 7/14, which conditions on the German students instead, answering the probability that a German student also studies French; 7/25 uses 18 + 14 minus 7 = 25, the number who study at least one language, which is a larger group than the one the question restricts you to.
9. (c) x + 3 — Expand the bracket: 0.5(4x + 6) = 2x + 3. Then subtract the x: 2x + 3 − x = x + 3. The option 2x + 3 comes from expanding the bracket correctly but then forgetting to subtract the x at all. The option x + 6 comes from forgetting to multiply the 6 inside the bracket by 0.5 (treating it as 2x + 6), then subtracting x. The option 3x + 3 comes from adding the x instead of subtracting it: 2x + 3 + x = 3x + 3.
10. (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.
11. (a) y = 2ˣ + 3 — A translation of 3 units in the positive y-direction shifts the whole graph up, which means adding to the output: y = f(x) + k with k = 3, so the image is y = 2ˣ + 3. Adding the 3 inside the power instead of outside it, which translates the graph horizontally instead of vertically, gives y = 2ˣ⁺³. Using a negative 3, which moves the graph down instead of up, gives y = 2ˣ − 3. Mistaking 2ˣ for the linear expression 2x and adding 3 inside brackets gives y = 2(x + 3).
12. (a) 2(3x + 1) = 6x + 2 — Expanding 2(3x + 1) = 6x + 2 gives an expression that matches the right-hand side exactly for every value of x — it is an identity. 4x − 3 = 3x + 5 is an ordinary equation with one solution, x = 8. 7 − x = x − 7 is also an ordinary equation with one solution, x = 7. 5x + 1 = 5(x + 1) never holds for any value of x at all, since expanding the right-hand side gives 5x + 5, and 5x + 1 = 5x + 5 would require 1 = 5, which is impossible.
13. (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.
14. (b) f(1) = −3 and f(2) = 3 — f(1) = 1³ − 1 − 3 = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3. f(2) = 2³ − 2 − 3 = 8 − 2 − 3 = 3. Since f(1) is negative and f(2) is positive, there is a change of sign, so a solution lies between x = 1 and x = 2. Dropping the −x term entirely gives f(1) = 1 − 3 = −2 and f(2) = 8 − 3 = 5. Using x² instead of x³ throughout gives f(1) = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3, which happens to coincide with the correct value at x = 1, but f(2) = 4 − 2 − 3 = −1, which does not show a change of sign at all. Working out −f(x) instead of f(x), a sign-flip error, gives f(1) = 3 and f(2) = −3, the correct sizes but with both signs reversed.
15. (a) They always charge the same, since 3(2n + 4) = 6n + 12. — Expand Advert A's formula by multiplying both terms inside the bracket by 3: 3 × 2n = 6n, and 3 × 4 = 12, giving 3(2n + 4) = 6n + 12, which is identical to Advert B's formula — so the two adverts always charge the same amount, whatever n is. Getting 6n + 4 comes from multiplying the 2n by 3 but leaving the 4 unmultiplied. Getting 2n + 7 comes from adding 3 to the bracket instead of multiplying by it. Saying it depends on n avoids expanding the bracket at all — once expanded, both formulas are identical for every value of n, so the cost can be compared directly.
16. (b) 2x + 3 — fg(x) means f(g(x)): apply g first, then apply f to the result. g(x) = 2x, so f(g(x)) = f(2x) = 2x + 3. Writing 2x + 6 comes from working out gf(x) instead — g(f(x)) = g(x + 3) = 2(x + 3) = 2x + 6 — which applies the functions in the wrong order. Writing 3x + 3 comes from adding f(x) and g(x) together, (x + 3) + 2x = 3x + 3, instead of composing them. Writing 2x² + 6x comes from multiplying f(x) and g(x) together, (x + 3)(2x) = 2x² + 6x, instead of substituting one into the other.
17. (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.
18. (a) 7 — Multiply the input by 2: 6 × 2 = 12. Then subtract 5: 12 − 5 = 7. A candidate who does the operations in the wrong order, subtracting 5 first and then multiplying by 2, gets (6 − 5) × 2 = 2. A candidate who only carries out the multiplication and forgets to subtract gets 12. A candidate who adds 5 instead of subtracting gets 6 × 2 + 5 = 17.