🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (d) (3/4)a + (1/4)c — Method: OX = OA + AX, and since AX is a third of XC, AX is 1/4 of the whole of AC, with AC = c − a. Working: OX = a + 1/4(c − a) = a − (1/4)a + (1/4)c = (3/4)a + (1/4)c. Answer: OX = (3/4)a + (1/4)c. Measuring 1/4 of AC from C's end instead of A's swaps the fractions round, giving (1/4)a + (3/4)c; adding (1/4)c onto the whole of a without subtracting a inside the bracket first gives a + (1/4)c; and treating the ratio as though AX and XC were equal gives the midpoint, (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Convert the ratio to a fraction of AC measured from A, subtract before you scale, and then add the result to OA.
3. (c) The sequence diverges, moving away from x = 3 — Starting from x₀ = 2.9: x₁ = 2.9² − 6 = 2.41, x₂ = 2.41² − 6 = −0.19, x₃ = (−0.19)² − 6 = −5.96, x₄ = (−5.96)² − 6 = 29.56 — the values swing away from 3 and grow rapidly, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Choosing 'settles towards x = 3' assumes that starting close to a root is enough for a rearrangement to converge to it, which is not always true — this rearrangement changes values too steeply near x = 3 to stay there. Choosing 'settles towards x = −2' assumes a diverging sequence must eventually land on the other root; instead it runs away to increasingly large values. Choosing 'stays constant at 2.9' ignores that applying the formula changes the value at every step.
4. (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.
5. (b) 3.38 — r₁ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8)) = √11.9366 = 3.4550. r₂ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.4550)) = √11.2947 = 3.3608. r₃ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.3608)) = √11.4232 = 3.3798, which rounds to 3.38. Choosing 3.36 stops at r₂, one iteration too early. Choosing 4.82 leaves out the '+ 5' inside the bracket, dividing by π × rₙ instead of π × (rₙ + 5). Choosing 3.45 comes from using π ≈ 3 instead of the calculator's π key throughout.
6. (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.
7. (c) x + 3 — Expand the bracket: 0.5(4x + 6) = 2x + 3. Then subtract the x: 2x + 3 − x = x + 3. The option 2x + 3 comes from expanding the bracket correctly but then forgetting to subtract the x at all. The option x + 6 comes from forgetting to multiply the 6 inside the bracket by 0.5 (treating it as 2x + 6), then subtracting x. The option 3x + 3 comes from adding the x instead of subtracting it: 2x + 3 + x = 3x + 3.
8. (d) −2 — y = f(x) − 6 is f(x) shifted down by 6, so every y-value on the graph decreases by 6. At x = 0, f(0) = 4, so the new y-value is 4 − 6 = −2. Adding 6 instead of subtracting gives 10; writing down the shift itself, −6, or leaving the original value 4 unchanged both skip the translation altogether.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (d) 4x + 5 — A minus sign directly before a bracket changes the sign of both terms inside it: 6x − (2x − 5) = 6x − 2x + 5 = 4x + 5. The option 4x − 5 comes from only changing the sign of the 2x term and not the −5, giving 6x − 2x − 5. The option 8x − 5 comes from adding 2x instead of subtracting it, as if the minus sign did not apply to the bracket, giving 6x + 2x − 5. The option 8x + 5 repeats that same addition mistake and also changes the sign of the −5 term.
12. (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'.
13. (a) xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ + 3) — Starting from x³ − 5x − 3 = 0, add 5x and 3 to both sides to get x³ = 5x + 3, then take the cube root of both sides: x = ∛(5x + 3), giving the iterative formula xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ + 3). A sign error when moving the constant term across, treating x³ − 5x − 3 = 0 as x³ = 5x − 3, gives xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ − 3). Swapping the coefficient of x with the constant term gives xₙ₊₁ = ∛(3xₙ + 5), which does not come from x³ = 5x + 3 at all. Treating cubing as meaning multiply by 3 rather than raise to the power 3, and so undoing it by dividing by 3 instead of taking a cube root, gives xₙ₊₁ = (5xₙ + 3) ÷ 3.
14. (b) (1/2)b − (1/2)a — Method: MN runs from M to N, so MN = ON − OM, with OM = (1/2)a and ON = (1/2)b. Working: MN = (1/2)b − (1/2)a. Answer: MN = (1/2)b − (1/2)a. Subtracting the other way round gives (1/2)a − (1/2)b, the reverse vector from N to M; subtracting the wrong way round AND forgetting to halve gives a − b, which is BA, not MN; and adding the two halved vectors instead of subtracting them gives (1/2)a + (1/2)b, which is the position vector of the midpoint of AB. Always subtract the START point's vector from the END point's vector, and halve OA and OB before you combine them, not after.
15. (c) (1/3)a + (2/3)b — Method: OP = OA + AP, and since AP is twice PB, AP is 2/3 of the whole of AB, with AB = b − a. Working: OP = a + 2/3(b − a) = a − (2/3)a + (2/3)b = (1/3)a + (2/3)b. Answer: OP = (1/3)a + (2/3)b. Measuring 2/3 of AB from B's end instead of A's swaps the fractions round, giving (2/3)a + (1/3)b; adding (2/3)b onto the whole of a without first subtracting a inside the bracket gives a + (2/3)b; and treating the ratio as though AP and PB were equal gives the midpoint, (1/2)a + (1/2)b. Convert the ratio to a fraction of AB measured from the point named first in the ratio, subtract before you scale, and then add the result to OA.
16. (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).
17. (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.
18. (b) 2/11 — Method: restrict the 36 equally likely outcomes to those where at least one die shows a 5, then find what fraction of THOSE give a total of 8. Working: outcomes with at least one 5: (5, 1), (5, 2), (5, 3), (5, 4), (5, 5), (5, 6), (1, 5), (2, 5), (3, 5), (4, 5), (6, 5) — 11 outcomes. Among these, the total is 8 for (5, 3) and (3, 5) — 2 outcomes. P(total 8 | at least one 5) = 2/11. Answer: 2/11. Watch out: 5/36 is P(total 8) over the full 36 outcomes — it ignores that you already know one die shows a 5. Treating the condition as 'the first die shows a 5' instead of 'at least one die shows a 5' restricts you to only 6 outcomes and misses the (3, 5) case, giving 1/6. And counting only (5, 3) but not its reverse (3, 5) inside the correct 11-outcome list gives 1/11 instead of 2/11.