🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (c) 27 — Method: a frequency is the area of the part of the bar being asked about, so frequency = frequency density × the width of that part. Working: the part asked about runs from 20 to 35, so its width is 35 − 20 = 15 metres; the frequency density there is 1.8 per metre, so the estimate is 1.8 × 15 = 27. Answer: about 27 throws. The distractors: 72 comes from taking the whole bar, 1.8 × 40, and so counting every throw from 20 up to 60; 1.8 comes from reading the height of the bar as a frequency, when a height is a density and only an area is a count; 63 comes from using the upper value 35 as the width, 1.8 × 35, instead of the width 35 − 20.
2. (b) 1/3 — Method: the first sweet has already been taken and it was red, so work out the second probability from what is actually left in the bag. Working: one red sweet has gone, so 3 red sweets remain out of 9 sweets altogether, giving 3/9. Dividing the numerator and the denominator by 3 gives 1/3. Answer: the probability is 1/3. The distractors: 2/5 is 4/10, the probability for the first draw used again, which is only right if the first sweet is put back; 3/10 takes one off the red count but leaves the total at 10, updating half of the fraction; 4/9 takes one off the total but leaves the red count at 4, updating the other half of the fraction.
3. (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.
4. (b) 0.0309 — Method: P(both defective | at least one defective) = P(both defective) ÷ P(at least one defective). Find each using independence: P(both) = 0.06², P(at least one) = 1 − P(neither) = 1 − 0.94². Working: P(both) = 0.06² = 0.0036. P(neither) = 0.94² = 0.8836, so P(at least one) = 1 − 0.8836 = 0.1164. P(both | at least one) = 0.0036 ÷ 0.1164 = 0.0309 (3 s.f.). Answer: 0.0309. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.0036 gives P(both defective) itself, not the probability once you already know at least one is defective — you still need to divide by P(at least one defective). Giving 0.0600 answers with the single-component defect rate, ignoring the condition altogether. And 0.5000 assumes that 'at least one' makes the outcomes 'exactly one defective' and 'both defective' equally likely, which is not how these probabilities combine.
5. (a) (4, −8), a minimum point — The transformation x → x + 1 inside f translates the graph 1 unit to the LEFT, so the x-coordinate becomes 5 − 1 = 4. The minus sign in front of f reflects the graph in the x-axis, so the y-coordinate becomes −8, and a reflection in the x-axis turns every maximum into a minimum, so (4, −8) is a minimum point. Writing '(4, −8), a maximum point' gets the coordinates right but forgets that a reflection in the x-axis swaps maximum and minimum points. Writing '(6, −8), a minimum point' comes from translating 1 unit to the RIGHT instead of the left — f(x + 1) always moves the graph in the negative x-direction. Writing '(4, 8), a minimum point' gets the x-coordinate and the type right, but forgets to actually negate the y-coordinate, even though it does correctly reclassify the point as a minimum.
6. (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).
7. (c) −1.5 — Since n = k × m, dividing a number in n by the matching number in m gives k: k = −6 ÷ 4 = −1.5 (check with the bottom numbers: −9 ÷ 6 = −1.5, the same value, confirming n is a scalar multiple of m). 1.5 has the correct size but is missing the negative sign. −10 comes from subtracting the top numbers, −6 − 4, instead of dividing them. −24 comes from multiplying the top numbers, −6 × 4, instead of dividing them.
8. (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'.
9. (b) x² + y² = 625 — Since (7, 24) lies on the circle, x² + y² = 7² + 24² = 49 + 576 = 625, so the equation is x² + y² = 625. Choosing x² + y² = 31 adds the coordinates 7 and 24 directly instead of squaring them first. Choosing x² + y² = 576 uses only 24² and forgets to add 7². Choosing x² + y² = 49 uses only 7² and forgets to add 24².
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (b) (3, −3) — Subtracting column vectors means subtracting the top numbers and subtracting the bottom numbers, in the order given: top = 5 − 2 = 3, bottom = 1 − 4 = −3, giving (3, −3). A candidate who works out v − u instead of u − v, reversing the order, gets (−3, 3). A candidate who makes a sign error on the bottom number, treating 1 − 4 as 3 instead of −3, gets (3, 3). A candidate who adds the vectors instead of subtracting gets (7, 5). Because the question asks for u − v, not v − u, the correct answer is (3, −3).
13. (d) n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, so one of them must be even; this makes n(n + 1) even, so 4n(n + 1) is 4 × an even number, which is a multiple of 8. — The proof needs a reason why n(n + 1) is even, not just an assertion. n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, so exactly one of them is even; multiplying by that even number keeps n(n + 1) even, so 4n(n + 1) = 4 × (an even number), and 4 × an even number always has a further factor of 2 hidden inside it, making the whole product a multiple of 8. The option 'is a multiple of 4, and because n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, it must be a multiple of 8' asserts the multiple-of-8 conclusion directly from 'multiple of 4' and 'consecutive integers' without ever showing that n(n + 1) itself is even — the missing step is exactly what earns the mark. The option '4n is always a multiple of 4 ... which means it is a multiple of 8' mistakes 4n being a multiple of 4 for the whole product 4n(n + 1) being a multiple of 8; that extra factor of 2 only comes from n(n + 1) being even, not from 4n alone. The option that expands to 4n² + 4n and calls it 'clearly a multiple of 8' never checks for a factor of 2 beyond the 4 already there — the word 'clearly' is standing in for a missing argument.
14. (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.
15. (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.
16. (d) a = 4 — Expand the left-hand side: (2x + 3)(x + a) = 2x² + 2ax + 3x + 3a = 2x² + (2a + 3)x + 3a. For this to match 2x² + 11x + 12 for every value of x, the x-coefficients must be equal and the constants must be equal: 2a + 3 = 11 and 3a = 12. Both give a = 4, so a = 4. Writing a = 12 comes from the constant-term equation 3a = 12: reading it as saying a itself is 12, rather than dividing both sides by 3. Writing a = 8 comes from the x-coefficient equation 2a + 3 = 11: working out 11 − 3 = 8 correctly but then stopping, without dividing by the 2 in front of a. Writing a = −4 comes from rearranging 2a + 3 = 11 the wrong way round, as 2a = 3 − 11 = −8, which gives a = −4 instead of a = 4.
17. (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.
18. (c) 4x − 3 — ff(x) means f(f(x)): substitute f(x) into f in place of x. f(f(x)) = 2 × f(x) − 1 = 2 × (2x − 1) − 1. Expanding the bracket: 2 × (2x − 1) = 4x − 2. Combining the constant terms: −2 − 1 = −3, so f(f(x)) = 4x − 3. Writing 4x − 2 comes from expanding 2(2x − 1) correctly to get 4x − 2, then forgetting to subtract the outer 1 at all. Writing 4x² − 4x + 1 comes from reading ff(x) as f(x) multiplied by itself, (2x − 1)(2x − 1) = 4x² − 4x + 1, instead of substituting f(x) into f. Writing 4x − 1 comes from doubling the coefficient of x in the original rule directly, without actually substituting f(x) into f at all.