🔺 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. (d) 4, 3, 2, 6 — Method: frequency density = frequency ÷ class width for each class in turn; do not assume the classes are all the same width. Working: the four classes have widths 10 − 0 = 10, 30 − 10 = 20, 45 − 30 = 15 and 50 − 45 = 5. Dividing each frequency by its own width gives 40 ÷ 10 = 4, 60 ÷ 20 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 30 ÷ 5 = 6. Answer: the frequency densities, in order, are 4, 3, 2 and 6. Watch the width of each class separately: treating the last class as if it were also 10 units wide, like the first, gives 30 ÷ 10 = 3 instead of 30 ÷ 5 = 6 — the classes here are deliberately unequal, so no width can be borrowed from another class; dividing the width by the frequency instead of the frequency by the width for the third class gives 15 ÷ 30 = 0.5 in place of 2, the formula the wrong way round; and reading the frequency column straight off the table, 40, 60, 30, 30, skips the division by width altogether and reports how many fish are in each class rather than how densely packed each bar is.
3. (b) 5.00 — Continuing the iteration: x₁ = √(2 × 1 + 15) = √17 = 4.1231, x₂ = √(2 × 4.1231 + 15) = √23.2462 = 4.8214, x₃ = √(2 × 4.8214 + 15) = √24.6428 = 4.9642, x₄ = √(2 × 4.9642 + 15) = √24.9284 = 4.9928, and the values keep climbing towards 5.00 as n increases (the limit L satisfies L² = 2L + 15, so L² − 2L − 15 = 0, giving L = 5). Choosing 4.99 stops after x₄, one iteration before the value has settled fully to 5.00. Choosing 17.00 uses the value under the very first square root (2 × 1 + 15 = 17) as if that number itself were the limit. Choosing 1.00 assumes the sequence never moves from the starting value x₀.
4. (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.
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (b) (2, 6) — y = f(x − 3) translates y = f(x) horizontally by 3 units to the RIGHT — inside the brackets, subtracting moves the graph in the positive x-direction. Turning point (−1, 6) → (−1 + 3, 6) = (2, 6). The common slip is to move LEFT instead, since the sign inside the bracket is negative — that gives (−4, 6). Changing the y-coordinate instead of the x-coordinate, as in (−1, 3) or (−1, 9), treats this as a vertical shift, which y = f(x − 3) is not.
10. (b) 1/4 — Method: the person picked is known to be aged 30 or over, so the sample space is those 140 people; divide the number of them who had been to the cinema by 140. Working: 35 of the 140 people aged 30 or over had been to the cinema, giving 35/140. Dividing the numerator and the denominator by 35 gives 1/4. Answer: the probability is 1/4. The distractors: 7/20 is 35/100, taking the count from the older group but the total from the under 30s, which is reading across the wrong row; 7/48 is 35/240, dividing by everyone surveyed instead of by the age group named; 3/4 is 105/140, the probability that someone aged 30 or over had NOT been to the cinema, the opposite event inside the correct group.
11. (c) 0.25 — Method: P(B | A) = P(A and B) ÷ P(A). Working: P(B | A) = 0.15 ÷ 0.6 = 0.25. Answer: 0.25. Watch out: multiplying 0.6 by 0.15 instead of dividing gives 0.09, and subtracting 0.15 from 0.6 gives 0.45 — neither uses the conditional probability formula. Leaving the answer as 0.15 mistakes the probability of A and B happening together for the probability of B once you already know A has happened — those are different quantities.
12. (c) Only x = 5 satisfies 3x + 5 = 20, not every value of x. — 3x + 5 = 20 is only true when x = 5, since 3 × 5 + 5 = 20; for any other value of x the two sides are not equal, so it is an equation, not an identity. Saying it cannot be simplified confuses simplifying with the equation/identity distinction, which is about how many values of x make it true. Saying it has an = sign is not a valid test, since identities are also written with an = or ≡ sign. A number on the right-hand side does not decide it either — what matters is whether both sides match for every value of x, not the form of the right-hand side.
13. (c) 145 g — Method: find the position of the median from the total frequency, locate the class that contains it, then use linear interpolation inside that class, assuming the apples in it are spread evenly. Working: the median is the 100 ÷ 2 = 50th apple; the running totals are 10, then 10 + 30 = 40, then 40 + 40 = 80, so the 50th apple lies in the class 140 ≤ m < 160; it is the 50 − 40 = 10th of the 40 apples in that class, and the class is 20 g wide, so the median is 140 + (10 ÷ 40) × 20 = 140 + 5 = 145. Answer: an estimated median of 145 g. The distractors: 150 g comes from giving the midpoint of the class that contains the median instead of interpolating inside it; 140 g comes from stopping at the lower boundary of that class, which locates the class but not the value; 155 g comes from measuring the 5 g step down from the upper boundary, 160 − 5, instead of up from the lower boundary.
14. (d) 2/3 — Method: the pupil picked is known to be a girl, so the sample space is the 45 girls and not all 80 pupils; divide the number of girls who walk by the number of girls. Working: 30 of the 45 girls walk to school, which gives 30/45. Dividing the numerator and the denominator by 15 gives 2/3. Answer: the probability is 2/3. The distractors: 3/8 is 30/80, dividing the girls who walk by every pupil in the group, which is the commonest slip on a conditional probability because it keeps the restricted numerator but the whole denominator; 1/3 is 15/45, counting the 15 girls who do not walk to school and so answering the opposite event inside the correct group; 11/20 is 44/80, adding the 30 girls and the 14 boys who walk and dividing by the whole group, which throws away the information that the pupil picked is a girl.
15. (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.
16. (d) 7/18 — Method: the pupil picked is known to study French, so the sample space shrinks to the 18 French students; divide the number who study both languages by 18. Working: 7 of the pupils study both French and German, and all 7 of them are among the 18 French students, so the probability is 7/18, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 7/18. The distractors: 7/30 divides by the whole class, keeping the restricted numerator but the full denominator; 1/2 is 7/14, which conditions on the German students instead, answering the probability that a German student also studies French; 7/25 uses 18 + 14 minus 7 = 25, the number who study at least one language, which is a larger group than the one the question restricts you to.
17. (c) 72 — Method: on a histogram the frequency of a class is the area of its bar, so frequency = frequency density × class width. Working: the class 50 ≤ m < 80 has width 80 − 50 = 30 grams and a frequency density of 2.4 per gram, so the frequency is 2.4 × 30 = 72. Answer: 72 pebbles. The distractors: 192 comes from using the upper class boundary, 80, as the width, giving 2.4 × 80; 12.5 comes from dividing the width by the density, 30 ÷ 2.4, which reverses the area rule; 2.4 comes from reading the height of the bar as the frequency itself, the commonest mistake on histograms, where a height is a density and only an area is a count.
18. (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.