🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (d) (6, 6) — y = f(x − 4) + 1 combines two translations: the −4 inside the brackets moves the graph 4 units to the RIGHT, and the +1 outside the brackets moves it 1 unit UP. Applying both to (2, 5): add 4 to the x-coordinate 2, and add 1 to the y-coordinate 5, giving (6, 6). Moving left instead of right, as the minus sign inside the bracket might suggest, gives (−2, 6) or (−2, 4); forgetting the horizontal shift altogether and only applying the vertical one gives (2, 6).
3. (c) n = 4 — Testing n = 4: 4² = 16, and 16 + 4 + 1 = 21, and 21 = 3 × 7 is not a prime number, so this value disproves the claim. Testing n = 1: 1² = 1, and 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, which is prime, so it does not disprove the claim. Testing n = 2: 2² = 4, and 4 + 2 + 1 = 7, which is prime. Testing n = 3: 3² = 9, and 9 + 3 + 1 = 13, which is also prime — a counterexample has to give a result that isn't prime, and only n = 4 does that.
4. (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.
5. (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.
6. (a) −1 — Reflecting y = sin x in the x-axis gives y = −sin x, so g(x) = −sin x. Since sin 90° = 1, g(90) = −1. Reading sin 90° = 1 and forgetting to apply the reflection gives 1. Misreading the angle as 0° instead of 90° gives sin 0° = 0, so 0. Confusing sin 90° with sin 30° = 0.5, then reflecting it, gives −0.5.
7. (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).
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (d) 36/91 — Method: P(both red | same colour) = P(both red) ÷ P(same colour), where P(same colour) = P(both red) + P(both green). Working: P(both red) = 9/20 × 8/19 = 72/380 = 18/95. P(both green) = 11/20 × 10/19 = 110/380 = 11/38. P(same colour) = 18/95 + 11/38 = 36/190 + 55/190 = 91/190. P(both red | same colour) = (36/190) ÷ (91/190) = 36/91. Answer: 36/91. Watch out: stopping at 18/95 gives P(both red) itself, without dividing by the probability that the colours matched at all. Working out 55/91 finds the same-colour probability for green instead of red — check which colour's count you are putting on top. And 9/20 is just the chance the first ball drawn is red, which ignores the second draw and the without-replacement condition completely.
11. (a) n² + n — n² + n = n(n + 1), the product of two consecutive integers. One of any two consecutive integers is always even, so their product is always even, whatever whole number n is. n² − n + 1 = n(n − 1) + 1 is always ODD, since n(n − 1) is even and adding 1 makes it odd — the opposite of what's asked. 2n + 1 is always odd by definition, not even. n² + 1 is not always even at all: it depends on whether n is odd or even, and testing n = 2 gives 5, which is odd.
12. (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.
13. (d) 2√2 — The radius satisfies r² = 8, so r = √8 = √(4 × 2) = √4 × √2 = 2√2. Choosing 8 forgets to take the square root of r² at all. Choosing 4 comes from halving 8 instead of finding its square root. Choosing √2 splits off the factor of 4 correctly but forgets to multiply the 2 back in front of the root.
14. (b) f(1) = −3 and f(2) = 3 — f(1) = 1³ − 1 − 3 = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3. f(2) = 2³ − 2 − 3 = 8 − 2 − 3 = 3. Since f(1) is negative and f(2) is positive, there is a change of sign, so a solution lies between x = 1 and x = 2. Dropping the −x term entirely gives f(1) = 1 − 3 = −2 and f(2) = 8 − 3 = 5. Using x² instead of x³ throughout gives f(1) = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3, which happens to coincide with the correct value at x = 1, but f(2) = 4 − 2 − 3 = −1, which does not show a change of sign at all. Working out −f(x) instead of f(x), a sign-flip error, gives f(1) = 3 and f(2) = −3, the correct sizes but with both signs reversed.
15. (d) 44 — Method: a cumulative frequency counts everything below a value, so the frequency of a class is the running total at the top of the class minus the running total at the bottom of it. Working: the running total below 20 kg is 96 and the running total below 10 kg is 52, so the number of boxes in the class 10 ≤ m < 20 is 96 − 52 = 44. Answer: 44 boxes. The distractors: 96 comes from quoting the running total at 20 kg itself, which counts every box below 20 kg rather than only those in this class; 34 comes from subtracting the wrong pair, 52 − 18, which gives the class 5 ≤ m < 10 instead; 54 comes from subtracting from the grand total, 150 − 96, which gives the boxes of 20 kg or more.
16. (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.
17. (c) 1 — At x = 0, f(0) = 4. Applying the transformations in order — reflect in the x-axis first, then translate up by 5 — gives −f(0) + 5 = −4 + 5 = 1. Applying the translation but forgetting the reflection gives f(0) + 5 = 9. Applying the reflection to the whole expression, including the +5, gives −f(0) − 5 = −9. Applying the reflection but forgetting the translation gives −f(0) = −4.
18. (c) 10x − 15 — Expand the bracket first: 3(2x − 5) = 6x − 15. Then add the 4x: 6x − 15 + 4x = 10x − 15. The option 10x − 5 comes from forgetting to multiply the 5 inside the bracket by 3 (treating it as 6x − 5), then adding 4x. The option 10x + 15 comes from a sign error when expanding, treating 3 × (−5) as +15 instead of −15, then adding 4x. The option 6x − 15 comes from expanding the bracket correctly but forgetting to add the 4x term at all.