🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (b) (6, −8) — Method: a scalar multiple of m has the same ratio between its top and bottom numbers as m does. Working: m = (3, −4); multiplying both parts by 2 gives 2 × 3 = 6 and 2 × (−4) = −8, so (6, −8) is a scalar multiple of m. Answer: (6, −8). The vector (6, −4) needs a multiplier of 2 for the top number but only 1 for the bottom number, so it is not a multiple. The vector (−6, −8) needs a multiplier of −2 for the top number but 2 for the bottom number, so it is not a multiple. The vector (9, −8) needs a multiplier of 3 for the top number but 2 for the bottom number, so it is not a multiple.
2. (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.
3. (a) False — 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 12, not 8x − 3. — Expand the bracket by multiplying both terms by 4: 4 × 2x = 8x and 4 × (−3) = −12, so 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 12, which is not 8x − 3 — the student is wrong. Saying 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 3 comes from multiplying only the 2x by 4 and copying the −3 across unchanged. Saying 4(2x − 3) = 2x − 12 comes from multiplying only the −3 by 4 and leaving 2x unmultiplied. Claiming it is true because both expressions are linear ignores that equivalence depends on the actual coefficients, not the type of expression.
4. (d) n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, so one of them must be even; this makes n(n + 1) even, so 4n(n + 1) is 4 × an even number, which is a multiple of 8. — The proof needs a reason why n(n + 1) is even, not just an assertion. n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, so exactly one of them is even; multiplying by that even number keeps n(n + 1) even, so 4n(n + 1) = 4 × (an even number), and 4 × an even number always has a further factor of 2 hidden inside it, making the whole product a multiple of 8. The option 'is a multiple of 4, and because n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, it must be a multiple of 8' asserts the multiple-of-8 conclusion directly from 'multiple of 4' and 'consecutive integers' without ever showing that n(n + 1) itself is even — the missing step is exactly what earns the mark. The option '4n is always a multiple of 4 ... which means it is a multiple of 8' mistakes 4n being a multiple of 4 for the whole product 4n(n + 1) being a multiple of 8; that extra factor of 2 only comes from n(n + 1) being even, not from 4n alone. The option that expands to 4n² + 4n and calls it 'clearly a multiple of 8' never checks for a factor of 2 beyond the 4 already there — the word 'clearly' is standing in for a missing argument.
5. (c) (2n + 1)² + (2n + 3)² = (4n² + 4n + 1) + (4n² + 12n + 9) = 8n² + 16n + 10 = 8(n² + 2n + 1) + 2, and n² + 2n + 1 is an integer, so the sum is always 2 more than a multiple of 8. — Expand each square carefully: (2n + 1)² = 4n² + 4n + 1 and (2n + 3)² = 4n² + 12n + 9, since the cross term is 2 × 2n × 3 = 12n. Adding gives 8n² + 16n + 10, and factorising out 8 from every term that can hold one gives 8(n² + 2n + 1) + 2; since n² + 2n + 1 is always an integer, the sum is always 2 more than a multiple of 8. The attempt reaching 8(n² + 2n) + 10 has the correct expansion but stops the factorisation one step early — it never pulls a further 8 out of the 10 (10 = 8 + 2), so 'always 10 more than a multiple of 8' should be reduced to 'always 2 more than a multiple of 8'. The attempt reaching 2(4n² + 8n + 5) also has the correct expansion, and the factorisation is true, but 'always even' only shows the sum is a multiple of 2 — being even is necessary but nowhere near sufficient to be a multiple of 8, and the argument never finds the extra factor of 4. The fourth attempt makes an expansion slip, using (2n + 3)² = 4n² + 9 instead of 4n² + 12n + 9 — dropping the 12n cross term entirely — so it works from the wrong expression 8n² + 4n + 10 throughout, and no amount of correct working afterwards can recover the right conclusion.
6. (c) y = x² — Method: test a candidate rule against every pair given, not just one — a rule that fits one pair and fails another is not the rule. Working: the outputs 1, 4, 9 rise by 3 and then by 5, so they are not going up in equal steps and the input is not simply multiplied by a fixed number; comparing each output with its own input gives 1 × 1 = 1, 2 × 2 = 4 and 3 × 3 = 9, and all three pairs fit. Answer: y = x². The distractors: y = 3x comes from fitting only the last pair, where 3 × 3 = 9, and reading that 3 as a multiplier; y = 3x − 2 comes from assuming a multiply-then-add rule and using the first step in the outputs, 4 − 1 = 3, as the multiplier — it fits the first two pairs and fails the third; y = 2x comes from fitting only the pair 2 and 4 and reading every output as double its input.
7. (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.
8. (b) 4.39 — x₁ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4²) = ∛(150 − 48) = ∛102 = 4.672 (unrounded). x₂ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4.672²) = ∛(150 − 65.49) = ∛84.51 = 4.39 (2 d.p.). Choosing 4.67 stops after only one iteration, giving x₁ instead of x₂. Choosing 84.51 finds the value inside the cube root for x₂ but never takes the cube root. Choosing 6.32 comes from adding 3xₙ² instead of subtracting it inside the root, which does not match the given formula.
9. (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.
10. (a) x = 2, x = 7; y-intercept cannot be found here — Translating y = f(x) to y = f(x − 3) shifts the graph 3 units to the right, so each root increases by 3: x = −1 becomes x = 2, and x = 4 becomes x = 7. The y-intercept is the value at x = 0, which for this new graph is f(0 − 3) = f(−3) — and f(−3) is not one of the values given, so the new y-intercept cannot be worked out from the information given. Writing 'y-intercept stays at (0, −8)' wrongly assumes a horizontal translation leaves the y-intercept unchanged — it generally does not, since it moves the whole graph sideways, including the point that used to sit on the y-axis. Writing roots at x = −4 and x = 1 comes from translating 3 units to the LEFT instead of to the right — f(x − 3) shifts the graph in the positive x-direction, not the negative direction.
11. (a) x + 14 — Expand each bracket separately: 3(x + 4) = 3x + 12, and −2(x − 1) = −2x + 2 (multiply −2 by both x and −1). Combine: 3x + 12 − 2x + 2 = x + 14. Writing x + 10 comes from taking −2(x − 1) as −2x − 2, not flipping the sign of the −1 inside the bracket. Writing 5x + 10 comes from treating the second bracket as +2(x − 1) instead of subtracting it, so the x-terms are added rather than subtracted. Writing x + 13 comes from only multiplying the 2 by the x, and carrying the −1 across unmultiplied.
12. (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.
13. (b) (3, 10) — Method: multiply every part of p by 2, then add the matching parts of q. Working: 2p = (4, 6); adding q gives top 4 + (−1) = 3 and bottom 6 + 4 = 10. Answer: 2p + q = (3, 10). A candidate who forgets to double p first, working out p + q instead, gets (1, 7). A candidate who doubles q instead of p, working out p + 2q, gets (0, 11). A candidate who subtracts q instead of adding it, working out 2p − q, gets (5, 2).
14. (c) −0.5 — fg(x) = f(g(x)) = f(x²) = x² + 2. gf(x) = g(f(x)) = g(x + 2) = (x + 2)² = x² + 4x + 4. Setting fg(x) = gf(x): x² + 2 = x² + 4x + 4. Subtract x² from both sides: 2 = 4x + 4. Subtract 4 from both sides: −2 = 4x, so x = −0.5. Writing 1.5 comes from adding the 4 instead of subtracting it: 4x = 2 + 4 = 6, giving x = 1.5. Writing 'no solution' comes from expanding (x + 2)² as x² + 4 using (a + b)² = a² + b², losing the middle term — the equation then reads x² + 2 = x² + 4, which has no solution, but the expansion itself is wrong. Writing 0 comes from treating gf(x) as g(x) + f(x) instead of g(f(x)): x² + (x + 2) = x² + 2 gives x = 0, but that adds the two functions rather than composing them.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (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'.
18. (b) −3/4 — The tangent to a circle at a point is always perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point. The radius from (0, 0) to (3, 4) has gradient 4/3. The gradient of a line perpendicular to a line with gradient m is the negative reciprocal, −1/m, so the tangent's gradient here is −3/4. Using the radius's own gradient, forgetting that the tangent is perpendicular to it, gives 4/3. Negating the radius's gradient without also taking the reciprocal gives −4/3. Taking the reciprocal of the radius's gradient without negating it gives 3/4.