🔺 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. (c) y = 3x + 2 — Method: divide the change in the outputs by the change in the inputs to find the multiplier, then put one pair of values into the rule to find the number added on. Working: the output rises by 11 − 5 = 6 while the input rises by 3 − 1 = 2, so the multiplier is 6 ÷ 2 = 3; with an input of 1, 3 × 1 = 3 and the output is 5, so 2 is added. Answer: y = 3x + 2, checked against the second pair by 3 × 3 + 2 = 11. The distractors: y = 3x − 2 comes from finding the multiplier 3 and then subtracting the 2 instead of adding it; y = 2x + 3 comes from swapping the multiplier and the number added on; y = x + 4 comes from assuming the input is multiplied by 1 and using 5 − 1 = 4 as the number added on.
3. (c) 46 — Method: the cumulative frequency table gives the number of runners below each time; to find the number at or above a time, subtract that cumulative frequency from the total. Working: the cumulative frequency for t < 40 is 74, so 120 runners in total take away the 74 who finished in under 40 minutes: 120 − 74 = 46. Answer: 46 runners took 40 minutes or longer. Watch which boundary and which subtraction you use: reading off t < 50 instead of t < 40 and subtracting, 120 − 110 = 10, answers a different question, '50 minutes or longer'; giving 74 itself as the answer reports how many finished below 40 minutes, the opposite of what was asked; and subtracting the two nearby cumulative frequencies, 110 − 74 = 36, finds how many took between 40 and 50 minutes, not everyone from 40 minutes upward.
4. (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.
5. (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.
6. (b) xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ² + 3) ÷ 5 — Starting from x² = 5x − 3, add 3 to both sides: x² + 3 = 5x. Divide both sides by 5: x = (x² + 3) ÷ 5. Writing this as an iteration gives xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ² + 3) ÷ 5. xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ² − 3) ÷ 5 comes from a sign error when moving the −3 across the equals sign — it should become +3, not stay as −3. xₙ₊₁ = 5(xₙ² + 3) comes from multiplying by 5 instead of dividing by 5 when isolating x. xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ + 3) ÷ 5 comes from dropping the index on x², using xₙ instead of xₙ².
7. (b) (0, 6) and (0, −6) — Method: every point on the y-axis has x-coordinate 0, so substitute x = 0 into the equation of the circle and solve for y, remembering that a square root has a negative value as well as a positive one. Working: putting x = 0 into x² + y² = 36 leaves y² = 36, so y = 6 or y = −6, and the two crossings are (0, 6) and (0, −6). Answer: (0, 6) and (0, −6). The distractors: (0, 36) and (0, −36) use 36 itself as the distance from the centre, which reads r² as r; (6, 0) and (−6, 0) are the right distance from the centre but are the crossings of the x-axis, found by setting y = 0 instead of x = 0; (0, 18) and (0, −18) halve 36, treating the right-hand side of the equation as a diameter.
8. (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.
9. (d) x₂ closer: f(x₂) = 0.0225, nearer to 0 — f(2.6) = 2.6² − 7 = 6.76 − 7 = −0.24, and f(2.65) = 2.65² − 7 = 7.0225 − 7 = 0.0225. The closer a value of x is to the root, the closer f(x) is to zero — regardless of sign. Since |0.0225| = 0.0225 is much smaller than |−0.24| = 0.24, x₂ = 2.65 is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: −0.24 is the smaller value' comes from comparing the SIGNED values of f(x) rather than their distances from zero — −0.24 is indeed less than 0.0225 as a number, but that does not mean x₁ is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: f(x₁) negative ⇒ nearer root' invents a rule that a negative f(x) means x is closer to the root; the sign of f(x) only tells you which side of the root x is on, not how close it is. 'x₂ is the exact root, since f(x₂) ≈ 0' misreads f(x₂) = 0.0225 as zero; the true root is √7 ≈ 2.6458, so f(2.65) is close to zero but not equal to it, and x₂ is an approximation, not the exact root.
10. (c) 37.5 — The tangent at (18, 24) is 18x + 24y = 900 (using ax + by = r² with a = 18, b = 24, r² = 900). Setting x = 0 to find the y-intercept: 24y = 900, so y = 37.5. Choosing 900 skips the division by 24 and just repeats the constant. Choosing 50 divides the constant by the x-coefficient 18 instead of the y-coefficient 24. Choosing 1.25 uses the radius 30 instead of r² = 900 as the constant before dividing.
11. (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.
12. (c) 4x − 3 — ff(x) means f(f(x)): substitute f(x) into f in place of x. f(f(x)) = 2 × f(x) − 1 = 2 × (2x − 1) − 1. Expanding the bracket: 2 × (2x − 1) = 4x − 2. Combining the constant terms: −2 − 1 = −3, so f(f(x)) = 4x − 3. Writing 4x − 2 comes from expanding 2(2x − 1) correctly to get 4x − 2, then forgetting to subtract the outer 1 at all. Writing 4x² − 4x + 1 comes from reading ff(x) as f(x) multiplied by itself, (2x − 1)(2x − 1) = 4x² − 4x + 1, instead of substituting f(x) into f. Writing 4x − 1 comes from doubling the coefficient of x in the original rule directly, without actually substituting f(x) into f at all.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (a) (3, 7) — y = f(x) + 5 is a vertical translation of y = f(x) by 5 units up — the translation vector is (0, 5) — so only the y-coordinate of any point changes. Turning point (3, 2) → (3, 2 + 5) = (3, 7). Adding the 5 to the x-coordinate, or treating it as a horizontal shift like y = f(x + 5), moves the wrong coordinate — check first whether the number sits inside or outside the brackets.
16. (c) y = (5/12)x − 169/12 — The gradient of the radius to (5, −12) is (−12 − 0) ÷ (5 − 0) = −12/5. A tangent is perpendicular to the radius at that point, so its gradient is the negative reciprocal, 5/12. Using y − y₁ = m(x − x₁) with (5, −12): y + 12 = (5/12)(x − 5), which gives y = (5/12)x − 169/12. y = −(12/5)x comes from using the radius's own gradient, −12/5, instead of turning it into the perpendicular gradient, and building the line through the origin (as the radius itself does). y = −(5/12)x − 119/12 comes from taking the reciprocal of −12/5 correctly as a size but keeping the wrong sign, using −5/12 instead of 5/12. y = (5/12)x − 25/12 comes from using the correct gradient 5/12 but building the line through (5, 0) instead of (5, −12) — dropping the point's y-coordinate.
17. (d) 18 minutes — Method: the lower quartile is the 80 ÷ 4 = 20th value and the upper quartile is the 3 × 80 ÷ 4 = 60th value; locate each inside its class by linear interpolation, then subtract. Working: the 20th value lies between the running totals 8 and 28, so it is in the class 10 ≤ t < 20, which holds 20 journeys across 10 minutes, and it is the 20 − 8 = 12th of them, giving 10 + (12 ÷ 20) × 10 = 16 minutes; the 60th value lies between the running totals 52 and 72, so it is in the class 30 ≤ t < 40, which also holds 20 journeys across 10 minutes, and it is the 60 − 52 = 8th of them, giving 30 + (8 ÷ 20) × 10 = 34 minutes; subtracting, 34 − 16 = 18. Answer: an estimated interquartile range of 18 minutes. The distractors: 20 minutes comes from taking the lower boundaries of the two quartile classes, 30 − 10, which locates the classes but never the values inside them; 40 minutes comes from subtracting the two positions, 60 − 20, instead of the two times; 22 minutes comes from interpolating downwards from each upper boundary rather than upwards from each lower boundary, giving 20 − 6 = 14 and 40 − 4 = 36.
18. (a) 1.36 — Method: put the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, feed that value back in to get x₂, and round only once the second value has been found. Working: x₁ = 5 ÷ (1 + 2) = 5 ÷ 3 = 1.66666…; x₂ = 5 ÷ (1.66666… + 2) = 5 ÷ 3.66666… = 1.36363…. The digit in the third decimal place is 3, so x₂ = 1.36 correct to 2 decimal places. Answer: 1.36. The distractors: 1.67 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula, given by a candidate who counts the starting value itself as x₁; 1.49 is x₃ = 1.48648…, one use of the formula too many; 1.37 comes from writing x₁ down as 1.66, truncating the display instead of keeping it in full, and then working out 5 ÷ 3.66 = 1.36612…, which rounds up to 1.37.