🔺 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. (b) x² + y² = 81 — The equation of a circle with centre the origin and radius r is x² + y² = r². Here r = 9, so r² = 9 × 9 = 81, giving x² + y² = 81. Choosing x² + y² = 9 uses the radius itself instead of squaring it. Choosing x² + y² = 18 doubles the radius (9 × 2 = 18) instead of squaring it. Choosing x² − y² = 81 keeps the correct 81 but writes a minus instead of a plus, which is not the equation of a circle.
3. (d) −11/60 — The radius from the origin to (11, 60) has gradient 60/11. The tangent is perpendicular to this radius, so its gradient is the negative reciprocal: −1 ÷ (60/11) = −11/60. Choosing 60/11 uses the radius's gradient unchanged, without applying perpendicularity. Choosing −60/11 negates the radius's gradient but forgets to take its reciprocal. Choosing 11/60 takes the reciprocal correctly but keeps the gradient positive instead of negative.
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. (d) (−2, 6) — Method: add the top numbers of both vectors to the starting x-coordinate, and the bottom numbers of both vectors to the starting y-coordinate. Working: x-coordinate 2 + 3 + (−7) = −2; y-coordinate −1 + 5 + 2 = 6. Answer: (−2, 6). A candidate who only applies vector u and forgets v gets (5, 4). A candidate who only applies vector v and forgets u gets (−5, 1). A candidate who works out the combined vector u + v but forgets to add it to the starting point gets (−4, 7).
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (c) Translate +1 in y; new range 0 ≤ y ≤ 2 — Adding 1 to sin x translates the graph 1 unit in the positive y-direction, and every y-value on the range increases by 1: −1 + 1 = 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, giving a new range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 2. A translation in the x-direction would not add anything to the y-values, so 'Translate +1 in x; range unchanged' correctly leaves the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 for that (wrong) transformation, but the transformation itself is not what y = sin x + 1 shows. 'Translate +1 in y; new range −2 ≤ y ≤ 0' correctly spots the translation but subtracts 1 from each bound instead of adding it. 'Reflect in the x-axis' mistakes the transformation for a reflection rather than a translation; reflecting sin x in the x-axis does leave the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 unchanged in size, but that is not the transformation y = sin x + 1 actually applies.
9. (b) 2/11 — Method: restrict the 36 equally likely outcomes to those where at least one die shows a 5, then find what fraction of THOSE give a total of 8. Working: outcomes with at least one 5: (5, 1), (5, 2), (5, 3), (5, 4), (5, 5), (5, 6), (1, 5), (2, 5), (3, 5), (4, 5), (6, 5) — 11 outcomes. Among these, the total is 8 for (5, 3) and (3, 5) — 2 outcomes. P(total 8 | at least one 5) = 2/11. Answer: 2/11. Watch out: 5/36 is P(total 8) over the full 36 outcomes — it ignores that you already know one die shows a 5. Treating the condition as 'the first die shows a 5' instead of 'at least one die shows a 5' restricts you to only 6 outcomes and misses the (3, 5) case, giving 1/6. And counting only (5, 3) but not its reverse (3, 5) inside the correct 11-outcome list gives 1/11 instead of 2/11.
10. (d) (1/2)a + (1/2)c — Method: X is the midpoint of AC, so OX = OA + (1/2)AC, with AC = c − a. Working: OX = a + 1/2(c − a) = a − (1/2)a + (1/2)c = (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Answer: OX = (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Since OB = a + c, this is exactly half of OB, so OX = (1/2)OB, meaning X lies on OB at its midpoint too — the two diagonals bisect each other. Forgetting to halve AC at all gives a + c, which is OB itself, not its midpoint; halving only the c-term gives (1/2)a + c; and a sign error on the c-term gives (1/2)a − (1/2)c. Halve the whole of AC, both terms together, and add it to OA rather than to a alone.
11. (d) −3 — Substitute y = 11 into y = 5 − 2x, giving 11 = 5 − 2x. Subtracting 5 from both sides gives 6 = −2x, so x = 6 ÷ (−2) = −3. A candidate who mishandles the negative sign when rearranging, treating the equation as 6 = 2x, gets x = 3. A candidate who correctly finds −2x = 6 but forgets to divide by 2 at all gets x = 6. A candidate who adds 5 and 11 instead of subtracting, getting 2x = 16, gets x = 8.
12. (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).
13. (b) It is not even an ordinary equation with a solution: expanding the left-hand side gives 3x − 12, and 3x − 12 = 3x − 4 would require −12 = −4, which is never true. — Expanding the left-hand side, 3(x − 4) = 3x − 12. Setting this equal to the right-hand side, 3x − 12 = 3x − 4, gives −12 = −4 once the 3x terms are removed from both sides — a statement that is never true, so no value of x satisfies the equation at all, and it is certainly not an identity. The option about substituting a specific value misunderstands algebraic expansion, which holds for every x, not one chosen value. The option matching the first term wrongly assumes that is enough to prove equivalence. The option about multiplying the 4 by 3 on both sides is nonsensical, since there is only one bracket to expand, on the left-hand side.
14. (d) 11 — f⁻¹(x) = 5 means x = f(5), since applying f to both sides undoes the inverse. f(5) = 2 × 5 + 1 = 11. Writing 2 comes from confusing f⁻¹(x) = 5 with f(x) = 5, and solving 2x + 1 = 5 instead: 2x = 4, x = 2. Writing 9 comes from finding f⁻¹(x) with a sign error, f⁻¹(x) = (x + 1)/2 instead of (x − 1)/2, then setting this equal to 5: x + 1 = 10, x = 9. Writing 6 comes from finding f⁻¹(x) without dividing by 2 at all, f⁻¹(x) = x − 1, then setting this equal to 5: x = 6.
15. (d) 4.521 — x₁ = √(3 × 4 + 7) = √19 = 4.358898944. x₂ = √(3 × 4.358898944 + 7) = √20.076696833 = 4.480702716. x₃ = √(3 × 4.480702716 + 7) = √20.442108148 = 4.521294964, which rounds to 4.521. Mislabelling the starting value x₀ as x₁, so that the working stops one iteration too early, reports the true x₂ = 4.480702716, which rounds to 4.481. Working out one iteration too many reports the true x₄ = √(3 × 4.521294964 + 7) = 4.534741987, which rounds to 4.535. Applying the formula in the wrong order, calculating √(3xₙ) + 7 at every step instead of √(3xₙ + 7), gives, from x₀ = 4: √12 + 7 = 10.464101615, then √(3 × 10.464101615) + 7 = 12.602883619, then √(3 × 12.602883619) + 7 = 13.148873950, which rounds to 13.149.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (b) 12/19 — Method: turn the percentages into expected frequencies out of 1000, total the faulty pens, then divide supplier Y's faulty pens by that total, because the pen picked is known to be faulty. Working: supplier X provided 700 pens and 2% of them are faulty, which is 14 pens. Supplier Y provided 300 pens and 8% of them are faulty, which is 24 pens. Altogether 38 pens are faulty, so the probability is 24/38, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 2 gives 12/19. Answer: the probability is 12/19. The distractors: 3/10 is supplier Y's share of the stock, the answer before the faulty information is used at all; 3/125 is 24/1000, the probability that a pen is from supplier Y and faulty, which stops at the joint probability and never divides by the probability of a fault; 4/5 is 8 divided by 2 + 8, comparing the two fault rates as though the suppliers provided equal numbers of pens, so the 70 to 30 split is thrown away.