🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (b) x² + y² = 1369 — For a circle centred at the origin, the radius squared equals the sum of the squares of the coordinates of any point on it: r² = 12² + 35² = 144 + 1225 = 1369. The equation is x² + y² = 1369. x² + y² = 2209 comes from adding the coordinates first and then squaring the sum: (12 + 35)² = 47² = 2209, instead of squaring each coordinate separately. x² + y² = 1225 comes from using only 35² and leaving out the 12² term. x² + y² = 144 comes from using only 12² and leaving out the 35² term.
2. (a) (0, 7) and (0, −7) — A tangent is horizontal where the radius to that point is vertical, i.e. where the point lies on the y-axis. On x² + y² = 49, setting x = 0 gives y² = 49, so y = 7 or y = −7. The points are (0, 7) and (0, −7). (7, 0) and (−7, 0) comes from swapping the condition — these are the points where the tangent is VERTICAL, not horizontal (the radius there is horizontal). (0, 7) only comes from finding one valid point but forgetting that y² = 49 also gives the negative root, y = −7. (7, 0) only combines both mistakes: the wrong axis, and only one of the two roots.
3. (a) (6, 8) — Method: a point lies on the circle x² + y² = 100 exactly when the squares of its two coordinates add to 100, so square both coordinates of each point and add them. Working: for (6, 8), 6² + 8² = 36 + 64 = 100, which matches the right-hand side of the equation. Answer: (6, 8) lies on the circle. The distractors: (3, 4) is the 3, 4, 5 right-angled triangle recalled but never scaled up to a radius of 10, and 3² + 4² = 25, so it lies on the far smaller circle x² + y² = 25; (5, 5) has coordinates adding to 10, which compares the sum of the coordinates with the radius instead of the sum of their squares with r², and 5² + 5² = 50; (10, 10) takes each coordinate separately to equal the radius, and 10² + 10² = 200, which is twice too big.
4. (d) Formula A gives £39 and Formula B gives £39, and since 3(2n + 5) expands to 6n + 15 for every value of n, the stallholder is correct. — Formula A: 3(2 × 4 + 5) = 3 × 13 = £39. Formula B: 6 × 4 + 15 = 24 + 15 = £39. Expanding Formula A algebraically gives 3(2n + 5) = 6n + 15, which is identical to Formula B for every value of n, not just n = 4, so the stallholder is correct — this is an identity, not a coincidence. The option giving £29 for Formula A comes from multiplying only the 2n by 3 and forgetting to also multiply the 5, then adding the unmultiplied 5: 3 × 2 × 4 = 24, + 5 = 29. The two options that reach the correct numbers but reject the stallholder's claim both use faulty reasoning — matching values at one value of n, or counting terms, does not decide whether two expressions are identical for every n; expanding the bracket does.
5. (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.
6. (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).
7. (c) 2.26 — Method: apply the formula repeatedly, keeping the whole display each time, and stop when two values in a row round to the same 2 decimal places; that shared rounded value is the solution to that accuracy. Working: x₁ = ∛(2 × 2 + 7) = ∛11 = 2.22398…; x₂ = ∛(2 × 2.22398… + 7) = ∛11.44796… = 2.25377…; x₃ = ∛11.50754… = 2.25767…; x₄ = ∛11.51534… = 2.25818…. Now x₃ and x₄ both round to 2.26, so the sequence has settled. Answer: 2.26. The distractors: 2.22 is x₁ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops after one use of the formula; 2.25 is x₂ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops as soon as two values look close instead of waiting until two consecutive values round to the same figure; 1.91 is ∛7, which comes from ignoring the 2x term and solving x³ = 7 instead.
8. (d) 5/11 — Method: the pen already taken was black, so update the contents of the box before working out the second probability. Working: the box held 12 pens and one black pen has gone, so 11 pens remain. None of the blue pens has been taken, so all 5 are still there, and the probability is 5/11, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 5/11. The distractors: 5/12 uses the box as it was at the start, which is only correct if the first pen is put back; 4/11 takes one off the blue count as well as the total, as though the pen removed had been blue; 6/11 gives the probability that the second pen is black, carrying on with the colour of the first pen instead of the colour asked for.
9. (b) y = −3x/4 + 25 — Method: a straight line that touches a circle at one point is a tangent there, so it is perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point; find the gradient of the radius, take its negative reciprocal, then substitute the point of contact into y − y₁ = m(x − x₁). Working: the radius from (0, 0) to (12, 16) has gradient 16 ÷ 12, which cancels to 4/3, so the tangent has gradient −3/4. Substituting gives y − 16 = −3/4(x − 12), so y − 16 = −3x/4 + 9 and y = −3x/4 + 25. Answer: y = −3x/4 + 25. The distractors: y = 3x/4 + 7 turns the gradient of the radius upside down but leaves it positive, so the perpendicular step is only half done; y = −4x/3 + 32 changes the sign of the radius gradient without turning it upside down, which is the other half left undone; y = −3x/4 − 25 uses the correct gradient but substitutes the point of contact with both signs reversed, writing y + 16 = −3/4(x + 12).
10. (a) 2x − 1 — Swap x and y: x = (y + 1)/2. Multiply both sides by 2: 2x = y + 1. Subtract 1 from both sides: y = 2x − 1, so f⁻¹(x) = 2x − 1. Writing 2x + 1 comes from not flipping the sign on the 1 when it is moved across the equals sign. Writing (x − 1)/2 comes from reversing the sign of the 1 but leaving the ÷2 from the original rule in place, instead of turning it into ×2. Writing x/2 − 1 comes from dividing only the x by 2 and treating the 1 as already outside the fraction.
11. (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.
12. (c) 27 — Method: a frequency is the area of the part of the bar being asked about, so frequency = frequency density × the width of that part. Working: the part asked about runs from 20 to 35, so its width is 35 − 20 = 15 metres; the frequency density there is 1.8 per metre, so the estimate is 1.8 × 15 = 27. Answer: about 27 throws. The distractors: 72 comes from taking the whole bar, 1.8 × 40, and so counting every throw from 20 up to 60; 1.8 comes from reading the height of the bar as a frequency, when a height is a density and only an area is a count; 63 comes from using the upper value 35 as the width, 1.8 × 35, instead of the width 35 − 20.
13. (a) 842.0 — The radius to (20, 21) has gradient 21/20, so the tangent's gradient is −20/21. The tangent line is y − 21 = −20/21(x − 20), i.e. y = −20/21x + 841/21. Setting y = 0 gives the x-intercept x = 841/20 = 42.05; setting x = 0 gives the y-intercept y = 841/21 ≈ 40.048. The area of triangle OPQ is 1/2 × 42.05 × 40.048 ≈ 842.0. 1684.0 comes from multiplying the two intercepts without the 1/2 that a triangle's area needs — twice the correct area. 580.7 comes from using the circle's radius, 29, as a side of the triangle instead of the x-intercept, 42.05: 1/2 × 29 × 40.048 ≈ 580.7. 2.0 comes from a sign error in the tangent's gradient — using 20/21 instead of −20/21 — which gives a different line, with intercepts x ≈ −2.05 and y ≈ 1.952, and area 1/2 × 2.05 × 1.952 ≈ 2.0.
14. (c) (1/3)a + (2/3)b — Method: OP = OA + AP, and since AP is twice PB, AP is 2/3 of the whole of AB, with AB = b − a. Working: OP = a + 2/3(b − a) = a − (2/3)a + (2/3)b = (1/3)a + (2/3)b. Answer: OP = (1/3)a + (2/3)b. Measuring 2/3 of AB from B's end instead of A's swaps the fractions round, giving (2/3)a + (1/3)b; adding (2/3)b onto the whole of a without first subtracting a inside the bracket gives a + (2/3)b; and treating the ratio as though AP and PB were equal gives the midpoint, (1/2)a + (1/2)b. Convert the ratio to a fraction of AB measured from the point named first in the ratio, subtract before you scale, and then add the result to OA.
15. (d) It has a solution between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3 — Since f(2.2) is negative and f(2.3) is positive, the graph of f crosses the x-axis somewhere between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3, so the equation has a solution in that interval. Choosing 'between x = −2.2 and x = −2.3' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.2 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no solution' misreads a change of sign as meaning the opposite of what it shows. Choosing 'exactly two solutions' assumes a single change of sign must give two roots, which is not what the rule guarantees.
16. (b) 5.00 — Continuing the iteration: x₁ = √(2 × 1 + 15) = √17 = 4.1231, x₂ = √(2 × 4.1231 + 15) = √23.2462 = 4.8214, x₃ = √(2 × 4.8214 + 15) = √24.6428 = 4.9642, x₄ = √(2 × 4.9642 + 15) = √24.9284 = 4.9928, and the values keep climbing towards 5.00 as n increases (the limit L satisfies L² = 2L + 15, so L² − 2L − 15 = 0, giving L = 5). Choosing 4.99 stops after x₄, one iteration before the value has settled fully to 5.00. Choosing 17.00 uses the value under the very first square root (2 × 1 + 15 = 17) as if that number itself were the limit. Choosing 1.00 assumes the sequence never moves from the starting value x₀.
17. (d) 25 — Method: the median is estimated at position n ÷ 2 in the cumulative frequency table, then interpolated across the class it falls in: lower boundary, plus the fraction of the way through the class, times the class width. Working: there are 80 sacks, so the median sits at position 80 ÷ 2 = 40. Before the class 20 ≤ m < 30 the cumulative frequency is 22, and by the end of it, it is 58, so this class holds the 40th sack; its frequency is 58 − 22 = 36 and its width is 30 − 20 = 10. The extra distance needed into the class is 40 − 22 = 18, and 18 ÷ 36 × 10 = 5, so the median is 20 + 5 = 25. Answer: the estimated median mass is 25 kg. Watch which numbers the interpolation uses: reading off just the lower boundary of the median class, 20, ignores how far into that class the 40th sack actually falls; treating n ÷ 2 = 40 itself as the median mass mistakes a position in the list for a mass in kilograms; and using the target position, 40, as the extra distance into the class instead of subtracting the sacks already counted changes the calculation to 20 + 40 ÷ 36 × 10. That comes to 20 + 11.1 = 31.1, overshooting the class because it never subtracts the 22 sacks already counted before it.
18. (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.