🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (a) 8 — f(x − 1) means every input to f is reduced by 1 before it is looked up. At x = 2, the input to f becomes 2 − 1 = 1, so f(x − 1) at x = 2 is f(1) = 8. Reading f(2) = 4 directly from the table, without applying the shift, gives 4. Shifting in the wrong direction, using x + 1 = 3 instead of x − 1 = 1, gives f(3) = 1. Confusing f(x − 1) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(2) = 4 and then subtracting 1 — gives 3.
2. (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.
3. (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.
4. (b) 8/35 — Method: the pupil picked is known to play at least one of the two sports, so first count how many pupils that is, then divide the number who play both by it. Working: 25 play football and 18 play tennis, but the 8 who play both have been counted in each figure, so the number who play at least one sport is 25 + 18 minus 8, which is 35. The pupils who play both give 8/35, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 8/35. The distractors: 2/15 is 8/60, dividing by the whole year group instead of by the 35 pupils who play at least one sport; 8/43 uses 25 + 18 as the denominator, forgetting that the 8 pupils who play both have been counted twice; 8/25 conditions on the footballers alone, answering the probability that a footballer also plays tennis rather than using every pupil who plays a sport.
5. (c) (−35, −55) — Add the three stages component by component to find the drone's position relative to base: (30+(−10)+15, 40+20+(−5)) = (35, 55). The flight back to base is the negative of this vector, reversing both numbers: (−35, −55). (35, 55) is the vector from base to the drone's position — it forgets to reverse direction for the return flight. (−35, 55) only reverses the top number. (35, −55) only reverses the bottom number.
6. (a) A translation by vector (0, 3) — y = x² + 3 adds a constant outside the squaring, so it is a vertical translation of y = x² — every point moves the same distance parallel to the y-axis, with no change in x. The vector is (0, 3), matching the +3. A vector of (3, 0) confuses this with a horizontal shift; (0, −3) has the right axis but the wrong sign, since the graph moves up, not down; a stretch changes the shape of the curve, which adding a constant term never does.
7. (a) (8, 2) — Method: translating a point by a column vector means adding the vector's top number to the x-coordinate and its bottom number to the y-coordinate. Working: x-coordinate 2 + 6 = 8; y-coordinate 5 + (−3) = 2. Answer: B = (8, 2). A candidate who ignores the negative sign and adds 3 instead of −3 gets (8, 8). A candidate who translates in the reverse direction, subtracting the vector from A instead of adding it, gets (−4, 8). A candidate who swaps the vector's top and bottom numbers before adding gets (−1, 11).
8. (b) y = 2x − 1 — Method: in a rule that multiplies and then adds, the multiplier is the step in the outputs for each step of 1 in the input, and the number added on is the output when the input is 0. Working: the inputs 0, 1, 2 rise in ones while the outputs −1, 1, 3 rise by 2 each time, so the input is multiplied by 2; an input of 0 gives 2 × 0 = 0 and the output must be −1, so 1 is subtracted. Answer: y = 2x − 1, checked against the last pair by 2 × 2 − 1 = 3. The distractors: y = 2x + 1 comes from finding the multiplier 2 correctly and then reading the output at an input of 0 as +1 instead of −1; y = x − 1 comes from taking the multiplier as 1 because the inputs go up in ones, instead of using the step in the outputs; y = 3x − 1 comes from reading the largest output, 3, as the multiplier.
9. (d) (2/5)a + (3/5)b — Method: OP = OA + AP, and since AP : PB = 3 : 2 splits AB into 5 equal parts, AP is 3/5 of the whole of AB, with AB = b − a. Working: OP = a + 3/5(b − a) = a − (3/5)a + (3/5)b = (2/5)a + (3/5)b. Answer: OP = (2/5)a + (3/5)b. Using the ratio the wrong way round, as though it read AP : PB = 2 : 3, gives (3/5)a + (2/5)b; adding (3/5)b onto the whole of a without subtracting a inside the bracket first gives a + (3/5)b; and treating the ratio as 1 : 1 gives the midpoint, (1/2)a + (1/2)b. Convert the ratio to a fraction of AB measured from A, matching the ORDER the ratio is stated in, and subtract before you scale.
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. (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.
12. (d) 2/3 — Method: since A is the midpoint of OE, OE = 2a, so E = 2a. Since FB is twice AF, F is 1/3 of the way along AB from A, so F = a + 1/3(b − a) = (2/3)a + (1/3)b. G is the midpoint of OB, so G = (1/2)b. Working: EF = F − E = (2/3)a + (1/3)b − 2a = −(4/3)a + (1/3)b, and EG = G − E = −2a + (1/2)b. Comparing term by term, 2/3 × (−2a + (1/2)b) = −(4/3)a + (1/3)b, which matches EF exactly — the same scalar works on both the a-term and the b-term, so the two vectors are parallel, and since they share the point E the three points are collinear. Answer: k = 2/3, so E, F and G lie on a straight line. Giving 1/3 instead is the scalar linking F to G (FG = (1/3)EG), not E to F; giving 3/2 is the reciprocal — it is EG that equals 3/2 × EF, not the other way round, since EF = k × EG was what was asked for; and giving 4/3 is EF's a-coefficient read off raw, without ever dividing it by EG's a-coefficient to form the comparison. Always match the direction of the scalar to the vectors exactly as the question states them.
13. (d) (3/4)a + (1/4)c — Method: OX = OA + AX, and since AX is a third of XC, AX is 1/4 of the whole of AC, with AC = c − a. Working: OX = a + 1/4(c − a) = a − (1/4)a + (1/4)c = (3/4)a + (1/4)c. Answer: OX = (3/4)a + (1/4)c. Measuring 1/4 of AC from C's end instead of A's swaps the fractions round, giving (1/4)a + (3/4)c; adding (1/4)c onto the whole of a without subtracting a inside the bracket first gives a + (1/4)c; and treating the ratio as though AX and XC were equal gives the midpoint, (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Convert the ratio to a fraction of AC measured from A, subtract before you scale, and then add the result to OA.
14. (c) 7/19 — Method: 'at least two black' covers two cases — all three black, and exactly two black. Work out the probability of each along a tree, add them, then use P(all three black | at least two black) = P(all three black) ÷ P(at least two black). Working: P(all three black) = 9/13 × 8/12 × 7/11 = 504/1716 = 42/143. For exactly two black, one order is black, black, white = 9/13 × 8/12 × 4/11 = 288/1716; the white sock could be drawn first, second or third, so there are 3 such orders, giving 3 × 288/1716 = 864/1716 = 72/143. P(at least two black) = 42/143 + 72/143 = 114/143. P(all three black | at least two black) = (42/143) ÷ (114/143) = 42/114 = 7/19. Answer: 7/19. Watch out: stopping at 42/143 gives the unconditioned probability that all three are black — it ignores that you already know at least two of them are. Dividing by the 'exactly two black' probability on its own gives 7/12, and forgets that the all-black outcomes are themselves part of the 'at least two black' group, so they must be inside the denominator, not left out of it. And 7/11 answers a different, easier question — the probability the THIRD sock is black given the FIRST TWO specifically are black — not 'at least two of the three, in any order, are black'.
15. (a) (9, −5) — Method: multiply every part of q by 2, then subtract the matching part from p. Working: 2q = (−4, 6); p − 2q gives top 5 − (−4) = 9 and bottom 1 − 6 = −5. Answer: p − 2q = (9, −5). A candidate who forgets to double q first, working out p − q instead, gets (7, −2). A candidate who doubles p instead of q, working out 2p − q, gets (12, −1). A candidate who adds 2q instead of subtracting it gets (1, 7).
16. (c) 2.61 — The limit L satisfies L = 12 ÷ (L + 2), so L(L + 2) = 12, giving L² + 2L − 12 = 0 and L = (−2 + √52) ÷ 2 = 2.6056, which is 2.61 to 2 decimal places (the early iterates 4, 2, 3, 2.4, 2.73, ... oscillate around this value before settling). Choosing 3.00 reads off x₃, one of the early oscillating values, before the sequence has settled close to the limit. Choosing 4.00 reads off x₁, the very first iterate, not the value the sequence approaches. Choosing 6.00 comes from writing the limit equation as L = 12 ÷ 2, leaving L itself out of the denominator.
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) 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.