🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (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.
4. (a) (4, −8), a minimum point — The transformation x → x + 1 inside f translates the graph 1 unit to the LEFT, so the x-coordinate becomes 5 − 1 = 4. The minus sign in front of f reflects the graph in the x-axis, so the y-coordinate becomes −8, and a reflection in the x-axis turns every maximum into a minimum, so (4, −8) is a minimum point. Writing '(4, −8), a maximum point' gets the coordinates right but forgets that a reflection in the x-axis swaps maximum and minimum points. Writing '(6, −8), a minimum point' comes from translating 1 unit to the RIGHT instead of the left — f(x + 1) always moves the graph in the negative x-direction. Writing '(4, 8), a minimum point' gets the x-coordinate and the type right, but forgets to actually negate the y-coordinate, even though it does correctly reclassify the point as a minimum.
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (d) £16.70 — The mileage charge is 2.20 × 6 = £13.20. Adding the fixed fee: £13.20 + £3.50 = £16.70. A candidate who forgets the fixed fee gives just the mileage charge, £13.20. A candidate who adds the fixed fee to the per-mile rate before multiplying by the number of miles, (3.50 + 2.20) × 6, gets £34.20. A candidate who rounds £2.20 down to £2 gets 2 × 6 + 3.50 = £15.50.
10. (a) Outside: OQ² = 221 > r² = 169 — OQ² = 10² + 11² = 100 + 121 = 221. Comparing this with r² = 169: since 221 > 169, OQ > r, so Q lies outside the circle — this is the correct verdict AND the correct working. 'Outside: OQ = 21 (10 + 11) > r = 13' reaches the same Outside verdict, but by invalid working: it adds the coordinates instead of squaring them (10 + 11 = 21, rather than 10² + 11² = 221), so the stated 'OQ' of 21 is not a distance at all — the verdict happens to match, but the method is wrong. 'Inside: OQ ≈ 14.87 < r² = 169' correctly finds the distance OQ = √221 ≈ 14.87, but then compares that DISTANCE with r² = 169 instead of with r = 13 — comparing two different kinds of quantity gives a meaningless, and here wrong, verdict. 'Inside: OQ² = 221 < (2r)² = 676' confuses the radius with the diameter: it compares OQ² with the diameter squared, (2 × 13)² = 676, instead of with r² = 169.
11. (d) y = x² − 10x + 21 — A translation by the vector (3, 0) moves the graph 3 units in the positive x-direction, which means replacing every x in the equation with (x − 3). Substitute into x² − 4x: (x − 3)² − 4(x − 3). Expand (x − 3)² to x² − 6x + 9, and expand −4(x − 3) to −4x + 12. Collecting like terms, x² − 6x + 9 − 4x + 12 = x² − 10x + 21, so the image is y = x² − 10x + 21. Substituting (x + 3) instead of (x − 3) — translating in the wrong direction — gives y = x² + 2x − 3. Adding 3 straight onto the original equation, treating the translation as vertical instead of horizontal, gives y = x² − 4x + 3. Expanding (x − 3)² as x² − 3x + 9, using −3x instead of −6x for the middle term, and then combining with −4(x − 3) gives y = x² − 7x + 21.
12. (a) Positive x-direction, 90°; image is y = sin x. — Writing cos(x − 90°) as cos(x − a) with a = 90 shows this is a horizontal translation, y = f(x − a), which moves the graph 90° in the positive x-direction; the identity cos(x − 90°) = sin x confirms the image is y = sin x. Choosing the negative x-direction reverses the sign inside the bracket — subtracting inside the bracket always translates in the positive x-direction, not the negative one, so that statement is wrong on direction. Getting the direction right but conflating the subtraction inside the bracket with an extra reflection of the output flips the sign of the resulting graph, wrongly giving y = −sin x. Treating the subtraction as if it changed the output directly, rather than the input, wrongly calls this a vertical translation even while still correctly recalling that the image simplifies to y = sin x.
13. (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.
14. (c) 50 — Method: the edge of the track is a circle centred on the origin, so it has equation x² + y² = r²; use the floodlight whose coordinates are given to find r², then substitute x = 0 to find where that circle meets the positive y-axis. Working: 30² + 40² = 900 + 1600 = 2500, so the edge of the track is x² + y² = 2500. Substituting x = 0 gives k² = 2500, so k = √2500 = 50, taking the positive root because k is positive. Answer: k = 50. The distractors: 2500 is r² used as though it were the radius, which would place the second floodlight fifty times too far from the centre; 70 adds the two coordinates, 30 + 40, instead of adding their squares; 40 takes the y-coordinate of the first floodlight to be the radius, which would only be true if that floodlight stood on the y-axis itself.
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. (c) Statement (ii) — Statement (ii) opens with 'Since n(n + 1) is even', treating the very fact the proof is meant to establish as if it were already known — that is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion to help derive itself. Statement (i) only names the two consecutive integers as n and n + 1; it makes no claim about whether their product is even, so it introduces nothing circular. Statement (iii) states the conclusion, and would be a valid final step if statement (ii) had reached 'one of n and n + 1 is even' by a genuine argument, such as considering the cases where n is even or odd separately. Saying the proof assumes nothing circular is wrong, because statement (ii)'s opening clause is exactly that assumption.
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) 6 — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis turns the minimum point (2, −3) into a maximum point at (2, 3), since −f(x) negates every y-value: −(−3) = 3. Adding a then gives 3 + a = 9, so a = 9 − 3 = 6. Forgetting the reflection and using the original y-value of −3 gives −3 + a = 9, so a = 12 — this ignores that −f(x) changes the sign of the y-coordinate before a is added. Writing a = −12 comes from subtracting in the wrong order, working out 9 − (−3) as −3 − 9 instead. Writing a = −6 comes from taking the negative of the correct answer, as if the final value of a needed to be reflected too, on top of the turning point.