🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (d) P lies outside the circle — The squared distance from the origin to P is 8² + 9² = 64 + 81 = 145, which is greater than 100, so P lies outside the circle. Choosing 'P lies inside the circle' comes from adding the coordinates directly (8 + 9 = 17) instead of squaring and adding them, and comparing 17 with 100. Choosing 'P lies on the circle' comes from squaring 9 incorrectly as 36 (as if it were 6²) instead of 81, giving 64 + 36 = 100, equal to the right-hand side. Choosing 'Cannot be determined' wrongly assumes the equation of the line itself is needed, when the radius and the distance from the origin to P are already enough.
2. (b) 6 — Method: frequency density = frequency ÷ class width. Working: the class 12 ≤ h < 18 has width 18 − 12 = 6, so frequency density = 36 ÷ 6 = 6. Answer: the frequency density is 6 seedlings per cm. Watch which numbers you use: taking the lower bound, 12, as the width instead of 18 − 12 = 6 gives 36 ÷ 12 = 3; dividing the total number of seedlings, 90, rather than this class's frequency, 36, by the width gives 90 ÷ 6 = 15, a density that belongs to no single class; and multiplying instead of dividing gives 36 × 6 = 216, far too large a density for so narrow a class.
3. (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.
4. (a) 49 — Method: add the frequencies of the classes that lie wholly below 35 seconds, then use linear interpolation for the class that 35 cuts through, assuming the calls in that class are spread evenly across it. Working: below 30 seconds there are 15 + 24 = 39 calls; the value 35 lies in the class 30 ≤ t < 50, which is 20 seconds wide and holds 40 calls, and 35 is 35 − 30 = 5 seconds into it, so the estimated share is (5 ÷ 20) × 40 = 10 calls; the estimate is 39 + 10 = 49. Answer: about 49 calls met the target. The distractors: 79 comes from adding the whole of the class 30 ≤ t < 50, 39 + 40, and so counting calls of up to 50 seconds as being under 35; 39 comes from stopping at the class boundary 30 and ignoring the part class altogether; 69 comes from measuring the part of the class from 35 up to 50 instead of from 30 up to 35, giving (15 ÷ 20) × 40 = 30 and then 39 + 30.
5. (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.
6. (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.
7. (a) (6, 8) — Method: a point lies on the circle x² + y² = 100 exactly when the squares of its two coordinates add to 100, so square both coordinates of each point and add them. Working: for (6, 8), 6² + 8² = 36 + 64 = 100, which matches the right-hand side of the equation. Answer: (6, 8) lies on the circle. The distractors: (3, 4) is the 3, 4, 5 right-angled triangle recalled but never scaled up to a radius of 10, and 3² + 4² = 25, so it lies on the far smaller circle x² + y² = 25; (5, 5) has coordinates adding to 10, which compares the sum of the coordinates with the radius instead of the sum of their squares with r², and 5² + 5² = 50; (10, 10) takes each coordinate separately to equal the radius, and 10² + 10² = 200, which is twice too big.
8. (c) −4 — f(2) = 7, and y = f(x) + a passing through (2, 3) means f(2) + a = 3, so 7 + a = 3, giving a = 3 − 7 = −4. Writing a = 4 comes from subtracting the wrong way round, 7 − 3 instead of 3 − 7. Writing a = 10 comes from adding the two y-values instead of subtracting one from the other. Writing a = 3 comes from taking the new y-coordinate as the value of a directly, without accounting for the original y-value of 7 at all.
9. (c) 9/28 — Method: two linked steps. Total everyone whose test is positive, since the person picked is known to be one of them, then divide the positive tests that belong to people with the condition by that total. Working: 45 positive tests come from people who have the condition and 95 come from people who do not, so 140 tests are positive. The people with the condition give 45/140, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 5 gives 9/28. Answer: the probability is 9/28. The distractors: 9/10 is 45/50, the probability of a positive test given that the person has the condition, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and is the figure a candidate quotes when the two are confused; 9/200 is 45/1000, dividing by everyone tested rather than by the 140 who tested positive; 1/20 is 50/1000, the probability that a person has the condition before the test result is used at all.
10. (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.
11. (c) 1/56 — Method: for draws without replacement, multiply a chain of three fractions where both the numerator (reds remaining) and the denominator (counters remaining) fall by one after each draw. Working: P(all three red) = 3/8 × 2/7 × 1/6 = 6/336 = 1/56. Answer: 1/56. Watch out: using 3/8 for all three draws (27/512) treats the counters as if they were replaced each time. Reducing only the numerator each draw (3/8 × 2/8 × 1/8) forgets that the total number of counters left in the bag also falls. And reducing only the denominator while keeping the numerator at 3 each time (3/8 × 3/7 × 3/6) forgets that a red counter has actually left the bag.
12. (a) 4(x + 3) = 20 and 4x + 3 = 11 when x = 2, so the two expressions are not equivalent, because the bracket means the 3 must be added before multiplying by 4. — Substituting x = 2: 4(x + 3) = 4 × 5 = 20, and 4x + 3 = 8 + 3 = 11. The two values are different, and expanding 4(x + 3) algebraically gives 4x + 12, which can never equal 4x + 3 (that would require 12 = 3) — so the two expressions are never equivalent, for any value of x. The option claiming they become equal for a larger x is wrong: 4x + 12 = 4x + 3 has no solution at all. The option claiming they are equivalent because they share the terms 4x and 3 ignores that the bracket changes the constant term. The option that calculates 4(x + 3) as 11 ignores the bracket completely, applying the 4 only to the x term.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (c) Week 16, £37,000 — y = f(x − 6) − 8000 combines a horizontal translation of 6 units RIGHT (subtracting 6 inside the brackets) with a vertical translation of £8000 DOWN (subtracting 8000 outside). Applying both to the maximum (10, 45000): 10 + 6 = 16, so the new maximum is in week 16. And 45000 − 8000 = 37000, so the maximum weekly profit is £37,000.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (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.