🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (a) 4/9 — Method: two steps. Find how many cars failed altogether, because the car picked is known to be one of them, then divide the diesel failures by that total. Working: 30 petrol cars and 24 diesel cars failed, so 54 cars failed. The diesel failures give 24/54, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 6 gives 4/9. Answer: the probability is 4/9. The distractors: 3/10 is 24/80, the probability that a car fails given that it is a diesel car, which is the condition and the event swapped; 3/25 is 24/200, dividing by every car serviced that week rather than by the 54 that failed; 2/5 is 80/200, the probability that a car chosen from the whole week is a diesel car, which ignores the fact that the car picked failed.
3. (c) 90 — Method: the height of a bar is its frequency density, so twice as tall means twice the frequency density — not twice the frequency, because the two classes have different widths. Then frequency = frequency density × class width. Working: the first bar has frequency density 3 per cm, so the second has frequency density 2 × 3 = 6 per cm; the class 30 ≤ x < 45 is 45 − 30 = 15 cm wide, so its frequency is 6 × 15 = 90. Answer: 90 rods. The distractors: 120 comes from doubling the first bar's frequency instead of its height — the first class holds 3 × 20 = 60 rods, and doubling that ignores the fact that the second class is narrower; 45 comes from using the first bar's frequency density, 3, for the second bar, 3 × 15, and so never using the information that it is twice as tall; 6 comes from stopping at the frequency density of the taller bar and quoting a height as though it were a count.
4. (c) 42 — Method: find the target cumulative frequency, 90% of the total, locate the class it falls in from the plotted points, then interpolate: lower boundary, plus the extra distance needed into the class divided by the class's frequency, times its width. Working: 90% of 320 is 0.9 × 320 = 288. The plotted points show a cumulative frequency of 280 at d = 40 and 320 at d = 50, so the class 40 ≤ d < 50 has frequency 320 − 280 = 40 and width 50 − 40 = 10, and 288 falls inside it. The extra distance needed into the class is 288 − 280 = 8, and 8 ÷ 40 × 10 = 2, so the diameter is 40 + 2 = 42. Answer: the estimated diameter is 42 mm. Watch which point and which class the interpolation actually uses: reading off d = 40, the plotted point just below the target, instead of interpolating the extra 8 ball bearings into the next 10 mm, stops one step short of the true answer; finding the diameter below which only 10% lie instead of 90% gives a target of 0.1 × 320 = 32, which falls in the class 10 ≤ d < 20 — the extra distance into that class is 32 − 30 = 2, and 2 ÷ 60 × 10 = 0.3, so this route gives 10 + 0.3 = 10.3, the bottom decile rather than the top 90%; and interpolating within the class 30 ≤ d < 40 instead of 40 ≤ d < 50, as though 288 had not yet reached a cumulative frequency of 280, treats the extra distance as 288 − 190 = 98, and 98 ÷ 90 × 10 = 10.9, giving 30 + 10.9 = 40.9, one class too early.
5. (c) Correct: 3y = 4 − x gives f⁻¹(x) = (4 − x)/3 — Swap x and y: x = 4 − 3y. Add 3y to both sides and subtract x from both sides: 3y = 4 − x. Divide by 3: y = (4 − x)/3, which is exactly what Ben wrote — his rearrangement is correct. Check with a value: f(1) = 4 − 3 = 1, and Ben's formula gives (4 − 1)/3 = 1, which matches. 'Correct, but only because f is its own inverse' gives the right verdict for a false reason — f(f(x)) = 4 − 3(4 − 3x) = 9x − 8, which is not x, so f is not self-inverse; Ben's rearrangement is correct for the ordinary algebraic reason above, not because of any special property of f. 'Wrong: sign kept, giving (−4 − x)/3' comes from not carrying the swap through consistently — testing x = 1 gives (−4 − 1)/3 = −5/3, which does not equal 1, so it is wrong. 'Wrong: correct inverse is (x − 4)/3' comes from writing 3y = x − 4 instead of 3y = 4 − x, a sign slip when isolating y — testing x = 1 gives (1 − 4)/3 = −1, which again does not equal 1.
6. (d) y = −2x + 10 — Method: a tangent is perpendicular to the radius drawn to the point where it touches, so work out the gradient of that radius, take its negative reciprocal for the tangent, then substitute into y − y₁ = m(x − x₁). Working: the radius joins (0, 0) to (4, 2), so its gradient is 2 ÷ 4 = 1/2; turning 1/2 upside down gives 2 and changing the sign gives −2. Substituting into y − 2 = −2(x − 4) gives y − 2 = −2x + 8, so y = −2x + 10. Answer: y = −2x + 10. The distractors: y = −0.5x + 4 changes the sign of the radius gradient but never turns it upside down, using −1/2 where −2 belongs; y = 2x − 6 turns the gradient upside down but leaves it positive, using 2 where −2 belongs; y = −2x − 10 has the correct gradient but substitutes the point with both signs reversed, writing y + 2 = −2(x + 4) instead of y − 2 = −2(x − 4).
7. (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.
8. (b) y = f(−x) — y = f(−x) reflects the graph of y = f(x) in the y-axis: every x-coordinate changes sign. The x-intercepts −3 and 7 become 3 and −7, matching the second graph's intercepts −7 and 3. A point already on the y-axis is unaffected, since −0 = 0, so the y-intercept (0, 21) stays exactly where it is — matching the second graph as well. y = −f(x) leaves the x-intercepts unchanged at −3 and 7, since f(x) = 0 exactly where −f(x) = 0, which does not match; it also sends the y-intercept to (0, −21), a second mismatch. y = −f(−x) does send the x-intercepts to the right places, −7 and 3, but it sends the y-intercept to (0, −21) instead of (0, 21), so it fails the second clue. y = f(x) − 4 moves every point down 4, sending the y-intercept to (0, 17) instead of (0, 21), so it fails the y-axis clue. Test each option against BOTH clues — the pair of x-intercepts and the point on the y-axis — because more than one option gets only one of the two right.
9. (d) 12/17 — Method: the person picked is known to have passed, so the sample space is everyone who passed; divide the course takers who passed by that total. Working: 120 course takers and 50 others passed, so 170 people passed. The course takers who passed give 120/170, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 10 gives 12/17. Answer: the probability is 12/17. The distractors: 4/5 is 120/150, the probability that someone passed given that they took the course, which reverses the condition and the event; 12/25 is 120/250, dividing by everyone who sat the test rather than by the 170 who passed; 17/25 is 170/250, the probability that a person picked from everyone sitting the test passed, which answers a different question altogether.
10. (d) y = −f(x + 2) has a maximum turning point at (1, 5). — y = f(x + 2) translates the graph 2 units in the negative x-direction, so the turning point's x-coordinate moves from 3 to 1; reflecting in the x-axis then negates the y-coordinate, turning −5 into 5, and also turns a minimum into a maximum — giving a true maximum turning point at (1, 5). Translating the root at x = 1 in the wrong direction, adding 2 instead of subtracting it, gives x = 3, but the true image root is at 1 − 2 = −1, so that statement is false. Keeping the coordinates (1, 5) correct but forgetting that reflecting in the x-axis turns a minimum into a maximum gives a false "minimum turning point" statement. Getting the reflection's effect on the turning-point type right (a maximum) but translating the x-coordinate in the wrong direction, using 3 + 2 = 5 instead of 3 − 2 = 1, gives a false statement at (5, 5).
11. (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.
12. (d) (6, 6) — y = f(x − 4) + 1 combines two translations: the −4 inside the brackets moves the graph 4 units to the RIGHT, and the +1 outside the brackets moves it 1 unit UP. Applying both to (2, 5): add 4 to the x-coordinate 2, and add 1 to the y-coordinate 5, giving (6, 6). Moving left instead of right, as the minus sign inside the bracket might suggest, gives (−2, 6) or (−2, 4); forgetting the horizontal shift altogether and only applying the vertical one gives (2, 6).
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (b) (x + 2)/3 — Start with y = 3x − 2 and swap x and y: x = 3y − 2. Add 2 to both sides: x + 2 = 3y. Divide both sides by 3: y = (x + 2)/3, so f⁻¹(x) = (x + 2)/3. Writing x/3 + 2 comes from dividing only the 3y term by 3 and leaving the +2 outside the division — the 2 must be added before you divide, not after. Writing (x − 2)/3 comes from keeping the subtraction sign instead of flipping it to addition when the −2 is moved across the equals sign. Writing 3x + 2 comes from swapping x and y but never actually solving for y — just changing the sign of the constant term.
16. (d) g is one-to-one: f(3) = f(−3), removed by x ≥ 0 — A function has an inverse only if it is one-to-one: every output must come from exactly one input. f(3) = 9 and f(−3) = 9, so two different inputs give the same output, and there is no way to send 9 back to a single input — f is not one-to-one over all real x. Restricting the domain to x ≥ 0 removes one of the two inputs behind every such pair, so g is one-to-one and does have an inverse. 'g's outputs are positive; f's could be negative' is wrong because f(x) = x² also only gives outputs of 0 or more — the outputs of f and g are identical sets; it is the INPUTS that differ, not the outputs. 'Restricting any domain always creates an inverse' is wrong because a restriction only helps if it actually removes the repeated outputs: restricting f(x) = x² to x ≥ −3 still leaves f(1) = f(−1) = 1, so that restricted function is still not one-to-one and still has no inverse. 'Squares can never be reversed, under any conditions' is wrong because √9 = 3 does reverse 3² = 9 once you know the input was non-negative — a square root just cannot tell you WHICH of two inputs you started from unless the domain has already ruled one of them out.
17. (b) 0.0309 — Method: P(both defective | at least one defective) = P(both defective) ÷ P(at least one defective). Find each using independence: P(both) = 0.06², P(at least one) = 1 − P(neither) = 1 − 0.94². Working: P(both) = 0.06² = 0.0036. P(neither) = 0.94² = 0.8836, so P(at least one) = 1 − 0.8836 = 0.1164. P(both | at least one) = 0.0036 ÷ 0.1164 = 0.0309 (3 s.f.). Answer: 0.0309. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.0036 gives P(both defective) itself, not the probability once you already know at least one is defective — you still need to divide by P(at least one defective). Giving 0.0600 answers with the single-component defect rate, ignoring the condition altogether. And 0.5000 assumes that 'at least one' makes the outcomes 'exactly one defective' and 'both defective' equally likely, which is not how these probabilities combine.
18. (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.