🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (b) £105 — The hourly charge is 25 × 3 = £75. Adding the call-out fee: £75 + £30 = £105. A candidate who forgets the call-out fee gives just the hourly charge, £75. A candidate who adds the call-out fee to the hourly rate before multiplying by the hours, (30 + 25) × 3, gets £165. A candidate who multiplies the call-out fee by the number of hours instead of the hourly rate, 30 × 3, gets £90.
2. (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.
3. (c) y = x² — Method: test a candidate rule against every pair given, not just one — a rule that fits one pair and fails another is not the rule. Working: the outputs 1, 4, 9 rise by 3 and then by 5, so they are not going up in equal steps and the input is not simply multiplied by a fixed number; comparing each output with its own input gives 1 × 1 = 1, 2 × 2 = 4 and 3 × 3 = 9, and all three pairs fit. Answer: y = x². The distractors: y = 3x comes from fitting only the last pair, where 3 × 3 = 9, and reading that 3 as a multiplier; y = 3x − 2 comes from assuming a multiply-then-add rule and using the first step in the outputs, 4 − 1 = 3, as the multiplier — it fits the first two pairs and fails the third; y = 2x comes from fitting only the pair 2 and 4 and reading every output as double its input.
4. (a) 4/9 — Method: two steps. Find how many cars failed altogether, because the car picked is known to be one of them, then divide the diesel failures by that total. Working: 30 petrol cars and 24 diesel cars failed, so 54 cars failed. The diesel failures give 24/54, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 6 gives 4/9. Answer: the probability is 4/9. The distractors: 3/10 is 24/80, the probability that a car fails given that it is a diesel car, which is the condition and the event swapped; 3/25 is 24/200, dividing by every car serviced that week rather than by the 54 that failed; 2/5 is 80/200, the probability that a car chosen from the whole week is a diesel car, which ignores the fact that the car picked failed.
5. (a) 1/3 — Method: since OABC is a parallelogram, B = OA + OC = a + c. M = (1/2)c, since M is the midpoint of OC. Since AN is twice NC, N is 2/3 of the way along AC from A, so N = a + 2/3(c − a) = (1/3)a + (2/3)c. Working: MN = N − M = (1/3)a + (1/6)c, and MB = B − M = a + (1/2)c. Comparing term by term, 1/3 × (a + (1/2)c) = (1/3)a + (1/6)c, which matches MN exactly. Answer: k = 1/3, so M, N and B lie on a straight line. Giving 2/3 instead is the scalar linking N to B (NB = (2/3)MB), not M to N; giving 1/6 is just MN's c-coefficient read off on its own, without comparing it to MB's c-coefficient at all; and giving 3 is the scalar the wrong way up — it is MB that equals 3 × MN, not the other way round, since MN = k × MB was what was asked for. Always match the direction of the scalar to the vectors exactly as the question states them.
6. (b) Translate +5 in x, then reflect in the x-axis. — Translating y = x² by 5 units in the positive x-direction gives y = (x − 5)². Reflecting this in the x-axis, which replaces y with −y, gives y = −(x − 5)², matching the target. Using a translation of −5 in x instead gives y = (x + 5)², and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −(x + 5)² — the sign inside the bracket is wrong. Reflecting in the y-axis first does nothing to y = x², since (−x)² = x², so translating afterwards only reaches y = (x − 5)² with no negative sign at all. Translating by 5 units in y instead of x gives y = x² + 5, and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −x² − 5, a different curve altogether — a vertical shift does not create the (x − 5)² term the target equation needs.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (d) £16.70 — The mileage charge is 2.20 × 6 = £13.20. Adding the fixed fee: £13.20 + £3.50 = £16.70. A candidate who forgets the fixed fee gives just the mileage charge, £13.20. A candidate who adds the fixed fee to the per-mile rate before multiplying by the number of miles, (3.50 + 2.20) × 6, gets £34.20. A candidate who rounds £2.20 down to £2 gets 2 × 6 + 3.50 = £15.50.
10. (b) 60 — Method: independence means the proportion of part timers among the cyclists is the same as the proportion among all the employees, so find that proportion and apply it to the cyclists. Working: 150 of the 400 employees work part time, which is a proportion of 0.375. Applying it to the 160 cyclists gives 0.375 × 160 = 60 employees. Answer: you would expect 60 employees. The distractors: 310 adds 150 and 160, treating the group who do both as everyone who does one thing or the other; 10 subtracts 150 from 160, reading 'both' as the difference between the two counts; 75 halves the 150 part timers, assuming that independence means they split evenly between cyclists and non cyclists, which would need exactly half the workforce to cycle.
11. (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.
12. (c) 1/2 — Method: restrict to the students who did NOT bring a packed lunch, then find what fraction of that group are girls. Girls without lunch = 42 − 24 = 18. Boys = 70 − 42 = 28, so boys without lunch = 28 − 10 = 18. Total without lunch = 18 + 18 = 36. Working: P(girl | no lunch) = 18 ÷ 36 = 1/2. Answer: 1/2. Watch out: dividing 18 by 42 (the total number of girls) instead of by 36 finds P(no lunch | girl), the reverse conditional. Dividing by 70 (the whole trip) ignores that you already know the student did not bring a lunch. And using the 'brought a lunch' numbers (24 out of 34) answers the question for the wrong group entirely — you were asked about the students who did NOT bring one.
13. (b) It is not even an ordinary equation with a solution: expanding the left-hand side gives 3x − 12, and 3x − 12 = 3x − 4 would require −12 = −4, which is never true. — Expanding the left-hand side, 3(x − 4) = 3x − 12. Setting this equal to the right-hand side, 3x − 12 = 3x − 4, gives −12 = −4 once the 3x terms are removed from both sides — a statement that is never true, so no value of x satisfies the equation at all, and it is certainly not an identity. The option about substituting a specific value misunderstands algebraic expansion, which holds for every x, not one chosen value. The option matching the first term wrongly assumes that is enough to prove equivalence. The option about multiplying the 4 by 3 on both sides is nonsensical, since there is only one bracket to expand, on the left-hand side.
14. (d) Yes, because 3² + 4² = 25. — A point lies on the circle x² + y² = 25 exactly when substituting its coordinates makes the equation true. Squaring each coordinate separately and adding: 3² + 4² = 9 + 16 = 25, which matches the right-hand side, so (3, 4) does lie on the circle. Adding the coordinates without squaring them, 3 + 4 = 7, and then reasoning that 7 is less than 25 happens to reach the same verdict, but it is not testing the equation of the circle at all — the circle equation depends on x² + y², not x + y. Squaring the sum instead of summing the squares, (3 + 4)² = 49, not 25, wrongly rules the point out. Doubling each coordinate instead of squaring it, so that 4² is taken as 8, gives 9 + 8 = 17, not 25, which also wrongly rules the point out.
15. (d) 2/3 — Method: the pupil picked is known to be a girl, so the sample space is the 45 girls and not all 80 pupils; divide the number of girls who walk by the number of girls. Working: 30 of the 45 girls walk to school, which gives 30/45. Dividing the numerator and the denominator by 15 gives 2/3. Answer: the probability is 2/3. The distractors: 3/8 is 30/80, dividing the girls who walk by every pupil in the group, which is the commonest slip on a conditional probability because it keeps the restricted numerator but the whole denominator; 1/3 is 15/45, counting the 15 girls who do not walk to school and so answering the opposite event inside the correct group; 11/20 is 44/80, adding the 30 girls and the 14 boys who walk and dividing by the whole group, which throws away the information that the pupil picked is a girl.
16. (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.
17. (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'.
18. (d) Reflect in the y-axis, +2 in x; roots 3, −2 — f(2 − x) is zero exactly when 2 − x equals one of f's roots: 2 − x = −1 or 2 − x = 4. Solving each correctly (x = 2 − (−1) = 3, and x = 2 − 4 = −2) gives the new roots x = 3 and x = −2. This is the same as reflecting y = f(x) in the y-axis to get f(−x), then translating 2 units in the positive x-direction to get f(−(x − 2)) = f(2 − x). Solving 2 − x = k as x = k − 2 instead of x = 2 − k is a sign slip when rearranging, and gives x = −3 and x = 2. Translating +2 in x with no reflection at all uses f(x − 2), whose roots are the original roots plus 2: x = 1 and x = 6 — this misses the reflection completely. Assuming 'no overall change' wrongly treats a reflection-and-translation pair as always cancelling out, when here the roots genuinely move, from x = −1 and x = 4 to x = 3 and x = −2.