🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (b) 143 — fg(4) means f(g(4)): work out g(4) first, then substitute the result into f. g(4) = 3 × 4 = 12, then f(12) = 12² − 1 = 144 − 1 = 143. Working out gf(4) instead swaps the order: f(4) = 4² − 1 = 15, then g(15) = 3 × 15 = 45 — that is the wrong composition. Treating f(x) as x − 1 (forgetting to square the input) gives f(12) = 12 − 1 = 11. Applying g twice instead of applying g then f gives g(g(4)) = g(12) = 3 × 12 = 36, which mixes up which function should be applied second.
3. (a) 2.154 — Continuing xₙ₊₁ = ∛(3xₙ + 4) from x₁ = 2.154 gives x₂ = 2.187, x₃ = 2.195, settling towards the root near 2.196 — this is the formula that converges. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ³ − 4) ÷ 3 from x₁ = 1.333 gives x₂ = −0.543 and then x₃ = −1.387, moving further from the root each time. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = 4 ÷ (xₙ² − 3) from x₁ = 4 gives x₂ = 0.308 and then x₃ = −1.377, swinging wildly rather than settling. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = xₙ³ − 2xₙ − 4 from x₁ = 0 gives x₂ = −4 and then x₃ = −60, running away from the root entirely.
4. (c) 1/2 — Method: restrict to the students who did NOT bring a packed lunch, then find what fraction of that group are girls. Girls without lunch = 42 − 24 = 18. Boys = 70 − 42 = 28, so boys without lunch = 28 − 10 = 18. Total without lunch = 18 + 18 = 36. Working: P(girl | no lunch) = 18 ÷ 36 = 1/2. Answer: 1/2. Watch out: dividing 18 by 42 (the total number of girls) instead of by 36 finds P(no lunch | girl), the reverse conditional. Dividing by 70 (the whole trip) ignores that you already know the student did not bring a lunch. And using the 'brought a lunch' numbers (24 out of 34) answers the question for the wrong group entirely — you were asked about the students who did NOT bring one.
5. (c) 5/18 — Method: knowing the total is even cuts the 36 equally likely outcomes down to the even ones, so count those first and then count how many of them give 8. Working: the even totals occur as 2 once, 4 three times, 6 five times, 8 five times, 10 three times and 12 once, which is 18 outcomes. The total is 8 for 2 and 6, 3 and 5, 4 and 4, 5 and 3, and 6 and 2, which is 5 outcomes. The probability is 5/18, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 5/18. The distractors: 5/36 keeps the right count of ways to make 8 but divides by all 36 outcomes, ignoring the fact that the odd totals have already been ruled out; 1/6 treats the six even totals 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 as equally likely and picks one of them, which they are not; 1/11 treats the eleven possible totals from 2 to 12 as equally likely and uses neither the counting nor the condition.
6. (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.
7. (b) (n + 1)² − n² = 2n + 1 — (n + 1)² = n² + 2n + 1, so (n + 1)² − n² = n² + 2n + 1 − n² = 2n + 1, which is odd because it is one more than the even number 2n. Expanding (n + 1)² as n² + 1 uses the false rule (a + b)² = a² + b², and subtracting n² from that leaves just 1 — always expand (a + b)² as a² + 2ab + b². Writing n² + 2n + 1 expands correctly but never carries out the subtraction of n². Writing 2n forgets the constant term left after subtracting.
8. (a) (30, 60) — Method: a cumulative frequency point is plotted at the upper boundary of its class, paired with the running total of all the frequencies up to and including that class. Working: the running totals are 7, then 7 + 19 = 26, then 26 + 34 = 60, then 60 + 40 = 100; the class 20 ≤ t < 30 has upper boundary 30, and the running total there is 60. Answer: the point for that class is plotted at 30 seconds against a cumulative frequency of 60. The distractors: (25, 60) comes from plotting at the class midpoint, which is what a frequency polygon uses and not what a cumulative frequency diagram uses; (30, 34) comes from plotting the class frequency, 34, rather than the running total; (20, 60) comes from plotting at the lower boundary of the class, which would claim that 60 calls took less than 20 seconds when only 26 did.
9. (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.
10. (b) 0.355 — Method: use the law of total probability across the two Monday branches: P(rain Tue) = P(rain Mon) × P(rain Tue | rain Mon) + P(no rain Mon) × P(rain Tue | no rain Mon). Working: P(no rain Mon) = 1 − 0.3 = 0.7. P(rain Tue) = (0.3 × 0.6) + (0.7 × 0.25) = 0.18 + 0.175 = 0.355. Answer: 0.355. Watch out: using only the rain-Monday branch (0.3 × 0.6) or only the no-rain-Monday branch (0.7 × 0.25) accounts for just one of the two ways Tuesday can turn out rainy — both branches must be added. And swapping which weekday-probability multiplies which branch (0.7 with the rain branch, 0.3 with the no-rain branch) uses the right numbers on the wrong branches.
11. (d) x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, 12) — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis, to get y = −f(x), negates every y-value but leaves every x-value fixed. The x-intercepts happen where y = 0, and −0 = 0, so they are unaffected: y = −f(x) still crosses the x-axis at x = −2 and x = 6. The y-intercept is the value at x = 0: f(0) = −12, so −f(0) = 12, giving the point (0, 12) — the sign flips because the y-intercept is a nonzero y-value, unlike the roots. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from confusing −f(x) with f(−x) — reflecting in the y-axis instead of the x-axis, which negates the x-values of the intercepts (turning −2 into 2 and 6 into −6) but leaves f(0) unchanged, since f(−0) = f(0) = −12. Writing 'x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from forgetting that −f(x) is a reflection at all, and assumes both intercepts stay exactly as they were. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, 12)' correctly negates the y-intercept but wrongly negates the x-intercepts too, as if a reflection in the x-axis also flipped the sign of every x-value.
12. (b) Q was faster on average and more consistent — Method: compare the medians for the average and the interquartile ranges for the spread, remembering that a shorter time is faster and a smaller interquartile range means more consistent. Working: the median for class Q is 35 seconds against 38 seconds for class P, so class Q was faster on average; the interquartile range for class P is 46 − 24 = 22 seconds and for class Q it is 44 − 30 = 14 seconds, so class Q's times are more tightly grouped. Answer: class Q was faster on average and more consistent. The distractors: calling Q slower comes from comparing the lower quartiles, 30 against 24, as though a quartile were the average; calling Q less consistent comes from using the gap between the median and the upper quartile as the spread, 44 − 35 = 9 against 46 − 38 = 8, instead of the full interquartile range; the statement that Q was both slower and less consistent comes from making both of those mistakes together.
13. (c) 14.1 — Method: in x² + y² = r² the right-hand side is the square of the radius, so take its square root to find the radius, then double the radius because the diameter is twice the radius. Working: r² = 50, so r = √50 = 7.07106…, and the diameter is 2 × 7.07106… = 14.14213…, which is 14.1 correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 14.1. The distractors: 7.1 is the radius, worked out correctly but never doubled, so it answers a question about the radius rather than the diameter; 100.0 comes from doubling the 50 on the right-hand side, treating r² as though it were already the radius; 25.0 comes from halving the 50, treating r² as though it were already the diameter.
14. (c) A reflection in the y-axis — Replacing x with −x reflects the graph in the y-axis: each point (x, y) maps to (−x, y). Reflecting the OUTPUT instead, y = −f(x), gives a reflection in the x-axis — that is a different function. Combining both reflections gives a rotation of 180° about the origin, and reflecting in the line y = x swaps the x- and y-values, which is what produces the inverse function, not f(−x). Check first which side of f the minus sign sits on.
15. (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.
16. (c) xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ) — Method: a formula xₙ₊₁ = f(xₙ) is a correct rearrangement when the equation x = f(x) turns back into the equation you started with, so rearrange x³ + 4x − 9 = 0 by making the cube the subject. Working: x³ + 4x − 9 = 0 gives x³ = 9 − 4x, because the 4x and the 9 each change sign as they cross the equals sign; taking the cube root of both sides gives x = ∛(9 − 4x), which is the formula xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ). Answer: xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ). The distractors: ∛(9 + 4xₙ) comes from writing x³ = 9 + 4x, moving the 4x across the equals sign without changing its sign; (9 + xₙ³)/4 comes from making the linear term the subject but keeping the sign of the cube, writing 4x = 9 + x³ when the equation gives 4x = 9 − x³; ∛(9 − 4xₙ³) cubes the x in the linear term as well, changing a term the original equation never cubed.
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) (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.