🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (a) xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ + 3) — Starting from x³ − 5x − 3 = 0, add 5x and 3 to both sides to get x³ = 5x + 3, then take the cube root of both sides: x = ∛(5x + 3), giving the iterative formula xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ + 3). A sign error when moving the constant term across, treating x³ − 5x − 3 = 0 as x³ = 5x − 3, gives xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ − 3). Swapping the coefficient of x with the constant term gives xₙ₊₁ = ∛(3xₙ + 5), which does not come from x³ = 5x + 3 at all. Treating cubing as meaning multiply by 3 rather than raise to the power 3, and so undoing it by dividing by 3 instead of taking a cube root, gives xₙ₊₁ = (5xₙ + 3) ÷ 3.
2. (b) 4.39 — x₁ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4²) = ∛(150 − 48) = ∛102 = 4.672 (unrounded). x₂ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4.672²) = ∛(150 − 65.49) = ∛84.51 = 4.39 (2 d.p.). Choosing 4.67 stops after only one iteration, giving x₁ instead of x₂. Choosing 84.51 finds the value inside the cube root for x₂ but never takes the cube root. Choosing 6.32 comes from adding 3xₙ² instead of subtracting it inside the root, which does not match the given formula.
3. (b) 60 — Method: independence means the proportion of part timers among the cyclists is the same as the proportion among all the employees, so find that proportion and apply it to the cyclists. Working: 150 of the 400 employees work part time, which is a proportion of 0.375. Applying it to the 160 cyclists gives 0.375 × 160 = 60 employees. Answer: you would expect 60 employees. The distractors: 310 adds 150 and 160, treating the group who do both as everyone who does one thing or the other; 10 subtracts 150 from 160, reading 'both' as the difference between the two counts; 75 halves the 150 part timers, assuming that independence means they split evenly between cyclists and non cyclists, which would need exactly half the workforce to cycle.
4. (a) −8 — −f(x) means take the output value from the table and change its sign, without changing which x-value is looked up. From the table, f(1) = 8, so −f(1) = −8. Reading f(1) = 8 from the table but forgetting to apply the negative sign gives 8. Misreading the row and using f(0) = 5 instead of f(1) = 8, then negating it, gives −5. Confusing −f(x) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(1) = 8 and subtracting 1 instead of negating — gives 7.
5. (c) x + 18 — Expand −3(2x − 6) by multiplying both terms by −3: −3 × 2x = −6x and −3 × (−6) = 18, giving 7x − 6x + 18 = x + 18. Writing x − 18 comes from not flipping the sign of the −6 inside the bracket, so −3 × (−6) is treated as −18 instead of +18. Writing x + 6 comes from forgetting to multiply the −6 by 3, only carrying its sign. Writing 13x − 18 comes from treating the whole bracket as being added rather than subtracted, so 3(2x − 6) = 6x − 18 is added to 7x.
6. (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.
7. (c) 17.7 cm — Method: the iteration converges on x, the depth of the box, which is also the side of each square cut away; a square is removed from both ends of the 20 cm side, so the longer side of the base is 20 − 2x. Run the formula three times, then carry out that subtraction. Working: x₁ = (16 × 1² − 1³ + 50) ÷ 60 = 65 ÷ 60 = 1.08333…; x₂ = 67.50636… ÷ 60 = 1.12510…; x₃ = 68.82959… ÷ 60 = 1.14715…. The longer side of the base is 20 − 2 × 1.14715… = 17.70568…, which is 17.7 cm correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 17.7 cm. The distractors: 1.1 cm is x₃ itself rounded, the depth of the box, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 18.9 cm is 20 − 1.14715…, taking away one square instead of two and forgetting that a corner is cut from each end of that side; 9.7 cm is 12 − 2 × 1.14715…, the shorter side of the base, which measures the wrong edge of the sheet.
8. (c) 9/28 — Method: two linked steps. Total everyone whose test is positive, since the person picked is known to be one of them, then divide the positive tests that belong to people with the condition by that total. Working: 45 positive tests come from people who have the condition and 95 come from people who do not, so 140 tests are positive. The people with the condition give 45/140, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 5 gives 9/28. Answer: the probability is 9/28. The distractors: 9/10 is 45/50, the probability of a positive test given that the person has the condition, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and is the figure a candidate quotes when the two are confused; 9/200 is 45/1000, dividing by everyone tested rather than by the 140 who tested positive; 1/20 is 50/1000, the probability that a person has the condition before the test result is used at all.
9. (c) Only x = 5 satisfies 3x + 5 = 20, not every value of x. — 3x + 5 = 20 is only true when x = 5, since 3 × 5 + 5 = 20; for any other value of x the two sides are not equal, so it is an equation, not an identity. Saying it cannot be simplified confuses simplifying with the equation/identity distinction, which is about how many values of x make it true. Saying it has an = sign is not a valid test, since identities are also written with an = or ≡ sign. A number on the right-hand side does not decide it either — what matters is whether both sides match for every value of x, not the form of the right-hand side.
10. (c) 145 g — Method: find the position of the median from the total frequency, locate the class that contains it, then use linear interpolation inside that class, assuming the apples in it are spread evenly. Working: the median is the 100 ÷ 2 = 50th apple; the running totals are 10, then 10 + 30 = 40, then 40 + 40 = 80, so the 50th apple lies in the class 140 ≤ m < 160; it is the 50 − 40 = 10th of the 40 apples in that class, and the class is 20 g wide, so the median is 140 + (10 ÷ 40) × 20 = 140 + 5 = 145. Answer: an estimated median of 145 g. The distractors: 150 g comes from giving the midpoint of the class that contains the median instead of interpolating inside it; 140 g comes from stopping at the lower boundary of that class, which locates the class but not the value; 155 g comes from measuring the 5 g step down from the upper boundary, 160 − 5, instead of up from the lower boundary.
11. (a) 31.5 — Method: to estimate the mean from a histogram, first turn each bar into a frequency (frequency density × class width), then use mean = Σ(frequency × midpoint) ÷ Σfrequency, with the midpoint standing in for every value in that class. Working: the four classes have widths 20, 10, 20 and 20, so their frequencies are 1 × 20 = 20, 3 × 10 = 30, 2 × 20 = 40 and 0.5 × 20 = 10, which do add to the 100 vehicles stated. Their midpoints are 10, 25, 40 and 60, so Σfx = 20 × 10 + 30 × 25 + 40 × 40 + 10 × 60 = 200 + 750 + 1600 + 600 = 3150, and the mean is 3150 ÷ 100 = 31.5. Answer: the estimated mean speed is 31.5 mph. Watch which numbers you treat as the frequencies and which as the values: using the frequency densities themselves as the frequencies, without multiplying by the class widths first, gives 1 × 10 + 3 × 25 + 2 × 40 + 0.5 × 60 = 195 spread over 1 + 3 + 2 + 0.5 = 6.5, and 195 ÷ 6.5 = 30, a mean built from the wrong 'frequencies' altogether; averaging the four midpoints on their own, (10 + 25 + 40 + 60) ÷ 4 = 33.75, ignores how many vehicles are actually in each class; and using each class's lower boundary in place of its midpoint, 20 × 0 + 30 × 20 + 40 × 30 + 10 × 50 = 2300 and 2300 ÷ 100 = 23, systematically underestimates every class by roughly half its width.
12. (c) The sequence diverges, moving away from x = 3 — Starting from x₀ = 2.9: x₁ = 2.9² − 6 = 2.41, x₂ = 2.41² − 6 = −0.19, x₃ = (−0.19)² − 6 = −5.96, x₄ = (−5.96)² − 6 = 29.56 — the values swing away from 3 and grow rapidly, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Choosing 'settles towards x = 3' assumes that starting close to a root is enough for a rearrangement to converge to it, which is not always true — this rearrangement changes values too steeply near x = 3 to stay there. Choosing 'settles towards x = −2' assumes a diverging sequence must eventually land on the other root; instead it runs away to increasingly large values. Choosing 'stays constant at 2.9' ignores that applying the formula changes the value at every step.
13. (d) −3 — Substitute y = 11 into y = 5 − 2x, giving 11 = 5 − 2x. Subtracting 5 from both sides gives 6 = −2x, so x = 6 ÷ (−2) = −3. A candidate who mishandles the negative sign when rearranging, treating the equation as 6 = 2x, gets x = 3. A candidate who correctly finds −2x = 6 but forgets to divide by 2 at all gets x = 6. A candidate who adds 5 and 11 instead of subtracting, getting 2x = 16, gets x = 8.
14. (b) 2/11 — Method: restrict the 36 equally likely outcomes to those where at least one die shows a 5, then find what fraction of THOSE give a total of 8. Working: outcomes with at least one 5: (5, 1), (5, 2), (5, 3), (5, 4), (5, 5), (5, 6), (1, 5), (2, 5), (3, 5), (4, 5), (6, 5) — 11 outcomes. Among these, the total is 8 for (5, 3) and (3, 5) — 2 outcomes. P(total 8 | at least one 5) = 2/11. Answer: 2/11. Watch out: 5/36 is P(total 8) over the full 36 outcomes — it ignores that you already know one die shows a 5. Treating the condition as 'the first die shows a 5' instead of 'at least one die shows a 5' restricts you to only 6 outcomes and misses the (3, 5) case, giving 1/6. And counting only (5, 3) but not its reverse (3, 5) inside the correct 11-outcome list gives 1/11 instead of 2/11.
15. (a) 7.9 m — Method: the iteration converges on the width of the plot, so run the formula three times from the starting value and then add 4 m, because the length is 4 m greater than the width. Working: x₁ = √(30 − 4 × 3) = √18 = 4.24264…; x₂ = √(30 − 4 × 4.24264…) = √13.02943… = 3.60963…; x₃ = √(30 − 4 × 3.60963…) = √15.56147… = 3.94480…. The estimate for the length is 3.94480… + 4 = 7.94480…, which is 7.9 m correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 7.9 m. The iteration is still oscillating at x₃, so this is the estimate that three uses of the formula give, not a settled value. The distractors: 3.9 m is x₃ itself, the width, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 7.6 m uses x₂ in place of x₃, one use of the formula short, and then adds the 4 m correctly; 15.8 m multiplies the width by 4 instead of adding 4 m to it, reading greater than as a multiplier.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (b) 12n — Distributing the minus sign across the second bracket gives n² + 6n + 9 − n² + 6n − 9, and the n² terms and the +9/−9 cancel, leaving 6n + 6n = 12n. Writing 18 comes from only negating the first term of the second bracket, n², and treating the −6n and +9 as unchanged, which gives n² + 6n + 9 − n² − 6n + 9 = 18. Writing 2n² + 18 comes from adding the two brackets instead of subtracting them, (n² + 6n + 9) + (n² − 6n + 9) = 2n² + 18. Writing 6n comes from correctly negating the bracket but then only counting one of the two 6n terms, missing that they add rather than cancel.