🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (c) 15/23 — Method: find P(rough and delayed) and the overall P(delayed) using the tree, then divide. Working: P(rough and delayed) = 0.2 × 0.75 = 0.15. P(calm and delayed) = 0.8 × 0.1 = 0.08. P(delayed) = 0.15 + 0.08 = 0.23. P(rough | delayed) = 0.15 ÷ 0.23 = 15/23. Answer: 15/23. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.15 (3/20) gives P(rough and delayed) itself, without dividing by the overall probability that a crossing is delayed. Giving 0.75 (3/4) is the probability you were told to start with — that a crossing is delayed GIVEN the sea is rough — which is the reverse of what's being asked. And 0.2 (1/5) is just the original probability that the sea is rough, before you take the fact that the crossing was delayed into account.
4. (a) 12.5 — Method: the tangent at A is perpendicular to the radius OA, so find the gradient of OA, take its negative reciprocal, write the equation of the tangent and find where it meets the y-axis; the length of OB is then the distance of that crossing from the origin. Working: OA runs from (0, 0) to (−6, 8), so its gradient is 8 ÷ (−6), which cancels to −4/3; the negative reciprocal of −4/3 is 3/4. Substituting into y − 8 = 3/4(x + 6) gives y = 0.75x + 4.5 + 8, so y = 0.75x + 12.5 and B is (0, 12.5). The length OB is therefore 12.5. Answer: 12.5. The distractors: 10 is the radius of the circle, quoted on the assumption that the tangent always meets an axis one radius from the centre, which is only true when the radius itself lies along that axis; 8 is the y-coordinate of A, quoted by treating the tangent as horizontal so that it keeps the height of A; 3.5 comes from turning the gradient of OA upside down without changing its sign, which gives y = −0.75x + 3.5.
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. (c) 4.30 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, then feed each value back in, keeping the whole display and respecting the order of operations, which divides before it subtracts. Working: x₁ = 5 − 3 ÷ 2.5 = 5 − 1.2 = 3.8; x₂ = 5 − 3 ÷ 3.8 = 5 − 0.78947… = 4.21052…; x₃ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.21052… = 5 − 0.7125 = 4.2875; x₄ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.2875 = 5 − 0.69970… = 4.30029…, which is 4.30 correct to 3 significant figures. Answer: 4.30. The distractors: 4.29 is x₃ = 4.2875 rounded, reached by counting the starting value itself as the first iterate and so stopping one use of the formula early; 3.80 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula; 2.50 comes from working out (5 − 3) ÷ xₙ instead of 5 − (3 ÷ xₙ), subtracting before dividing, which produces the sequence 0.8, 2.5, 0.8, 2.5 and lands on 2.5 at the fourth step.
7. (c) 0.5 per gram — Method: turn the two known bars into frequencies using area, subtract from the total to find how many letters are left, then divide that frequency by the width of the last class to get its height. Working: the first bar covers 50 g at a frequency density of 1.2, giving 1.2 × 50 = 60 letters, and the second covers 50 g at 1.8, giving 1.8 × 50 = 90 letters; together that is 60 + 90 = 150 letters, so 200 − 150 = 50 letters remain; the class 100 ≤ m < 200 is 100 g wide, so its frequency density is 50 ÷ 100 = 0.5 per gram. Answer: 0.5 per gram. The distractors: 0.25 per gram comes from dividing the remaining 50 letters by the upper class boundary, 200, instead of by the class width of 100; 2 per gram comes from dividing the class width by the frequency, 100 ÷ 50, reversing the formula; 1.4 per gram comes from subtracting only the first bar's 60 letters, leaving 140, and then dividing by 100.
8. (a) (4, 1) — y = −f(x) reflects the graph of y = f(x) in the x-axis: every point (x, y) maps to (x, −y). Applying this to (4, −1): the x-coordinate stays 4, and the y-coordinate −1 becomes its negative, 1. Leaving the y-coordinate unchanged skips the reflection entirely, giving (4, −1); reflecting the x-coordinate instead, or reflecting both, mixes this up with a reflection in the y-axis or a rotation, giving (−4, −1) or (−4, 1).
9. (a) 1.36 — Method: put the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, feed that value back in to get x₂, and round only once the second value has been found. Working: x₁ = 5 ÷ (1 + 2) = 5 ÷ 3 = 1.66666…; x₂ = 5 ÷ (1.66666… + 2) = 5 ÷ 3.66666… = 1.36363…. The digit in the third decimal place is 3, so x₂ = 1.36 correct to 2 decimal places. Answer: 1.36. The distractors: 1.67 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula, given by a candidate who counts the starting value itself as x₁; 1.49 is x₃ = 1.48648…, one use of the formula too many; 1.37 comes from writing x₁ down as 1.66, truncating the display instead of keeping it in full, and then working out 5 ÷ 3.66 = 1.36612…, which rounds up to 1.37.
10. (c) Statement (ii) — Statement (ii) opens with 'Since n(n + 1) is even', treating the very fact the proof is meant to establish as if it were already known — that is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion to help derive itself. Statement (i) only names the two consecutive integers as n and n + 1; it makes no claim about whether their product is even, so it introduces nothing circular. Statement (iii) states the conclusion, and would be a valid final step if statement (ii) had reached 'one of n and n + 1 is even' by a genuine argument, such as considering the cases where n is even or odd separately. Saying the proof assumes nothing circular is wrong, because statement (ii)'s opening clause is exactly that assumption.
11. (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.
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. (c) 9/16 — Method: two steps. Total the patients who had a flu jab, since the patient picked is known to be one of them, then divide the over 65s who had a jab by that total. Working: 90 patients over 65 and 70 patients aged 65 or under had a jab, so 160 patients had one. The over 65s give 90/160, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 10 gives 9/16. Answer: the probability is 9/16. The distractors: 7/16 is 70/160, the probability that the patient picked is aged 65 or under, which is the other part of the same restricted group; 3/4 is 90/120, the probability that a patient had a jab given that they are over 65, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and needs the 120 patients over 65; 9/40 is 90/400, dividing by every patient on the list instead of by the 160 who had a jab.
14. (c) 46 — Method: the cumulative frequency table gives the number of runners below each time; to find the number at or above a time, subtract that cumulative frequency from the total. Working: the cumulative frequency for t < 40 is 74, so 120 runners in total take away the 74 who finished in under 40 minutes: 120 − 74 = 46. Answer: 46 runners took 40 minutes or longer. Watch which boundary and which subtraction you use: reading off t < 50 instead of t < 40 and subtracting, 120 − 110 = 10, answers a different question, '50 minutes or longer'; giving 74 itself as the answer reports how many finished below 40 minutes, the opposite of what was asked; and subtracting the two nearby cumulative frequencies, 110 − 74 = 36, finds how many took between 40 and 50 minutes, not everyone from 40 minutes upward.
15. (b) Translate −90° in x, then translate −2 in y. — cos(x + 90°) translates the graph 90° in the NEGATIVE x-direction, since a positive shift inside the bracket moves a graph left, not right, and subtracting 2 afterwards translates it 2 units in the negative y-direction (down). So the sequence is: translate −90° in x, then translate −2 in y. Using +90° in x reverses the direction of the horizontal shift — the sign inside the bracket moves the graph the opposite way to what it looks like. Using +2 in y reverses the direction of the vertical shift; subtracting 2 outside the function moves the graph down, not up. Describing the −2 as a reflection in the x-axis is wrong because a reflection turns positive y-values negative and vice versa, whereas here every y-value is simply reduced by the fixed amount 2, which is what a translation does, not a reflection.
16. (a) 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households — Method: work out the probability inside the restricted group of garden owners, then work out the probability across the whole survey, and compare the two. Working: 54 of the 120 households with a garden own a dog, so the conditional probability is 54 divided by 120, which is 0.45. Across the whole survey 80 of the 200 households own a dog, which is 0.4. Since 0.45 is not 0.4, having a garden changes the chance of owning a dog and the two events are not independent. Answer: 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households. The distractors: 0.27 is 54/200, dividing the households with both by the whole survey instead of by the 120 with a garden; 0.675 is 54/80, the probability that a household has a garden given that it owns a dog, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round; 0.4 is 80/200, the probability of owning a dog with the garden information never used, which is why that route also reports no difference.
17. (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.
18. (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.