🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (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.
4. (c) a + (1/2)c — Method: OABC is a parallelogram, so OB = OA + AB, and since AB is equal and parallel to OC, AB = c; this gives OB = a + c. M is the midpoint of AB, so AM = (1/2)AB = (1/2)c. Working: OM = OA + AM = a + (1/2)c. Answer: OM = a + (1/2)c. Adding the whole of AB instead of half of it gives a + c, which is OB, not OM; halving the whole diagonal OB instead of just AB gives (1/2)a + (1/2)c, the midpoint of OB rather than of AB; and flipping the sign on the c-term gives a − (1/2)c, which points back the wrong way along AB. Halve only the side you are told to halve, and check the sign before you commit to an answer.
5. (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.
6. (a) 842.0 — The radius to (20, 21) has gradient 21/20, so the tangent's gradient is −20/21. The tangent line is y − 21 = −20/21(x − 20), i.e. y = −20/21x + 841/21. Setting y = 0 gives the x-intercept x = 841/20 = 42.05; setting x = 0 gives the y-intercept y = 841/21 ≈ 40.048. The area of triangle OPQ is 1/2 × 42.05 × 40.048 ≈ 842.0. 1684.0 comes from multiplying the two intercepts without the 1/2 that a triangle's area needs — twice the correct area. 580.7 comes from using the circle's radius, 29, as a side of the triangle instead of the x-intercept, 42.05: 1/2 × 29 × 40.048 ≈ 580.7. 2.0 comes from a sign error in the tangent's gradient — using 20/21 instead of −20/21 — which gives a different line, with intercepts x ≈ −2.05 and y ≈ 1.952, and area 1/2 × 2.05 × 1.952 ≈ 2.0.
7. (b) 6 — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis turns the minimum point (2, −3) into a maximum point at (2, 3), since −f(x) negates every y-value: −(−3) = 3. Adding a then gives 3 + a = 9, so a = 9 − 3 = 6. Forgetting the reflection and using the original y-value of −3 gives −3 + a = 9, so a = 12 — this ignores that −f(x) changes the sign of the y-coordinate before a is added. Writing a = −12 comes from subtracting in the wrong order, working out 9 − (−3) as −3 − 9 instead. Writing a = −6 comes from taking the negative of the correct answer, as if the final value of a needed to be reflected too, on top of the turning point.
8. (b) 2x + 3 — fg(x) means f(g(x)): apply g first, then apply f to the result. g(x) = 2x, so f(g(x)) = f(2x) = 2x + 3. Writing 2x + 6 comes from working out gf(x) instead — g(f(x)) = g(x + 3) = 2(x + 3) = 2x + 6 — which applies the functions in the wrong order. Writing 3x + 3 comes from adding f(x) and g(x) together, (x + 3) + 2x = 3x + 3, instead of composing them. Writing 2x² + 6x comes from multiplying f(x) and g(x) together, (x + 3)(2x) = 2x² + 6x, instead of substituting one into the other.
9. (d) x = 4 and x = −4 — Substituting y = 3 gives x² + 9 = 25, which simplifies to x² = 16, so x = 4 or x = −4. Choosing 'x = 3 and x = −3' uses the given value y = 3 as if it were the x-coordinate. Choosing 'x = 4' alone finds the positive square root of 16 but forgets the negative root. Choosing 'x = 5 and x = −5' skips subtracting 3² = 9 from 25 and takes the square root of 25 directly.
10. (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).
11. (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.
12. (a) 2.55 — x₁ = 20 ÷ (2 + 5) = 20 ÷ 7 = 2.857142857. x₂ = 20 ÷ (2.857142857 + 5) = 20 ÷ 7.857142857 = 2.545454545, which rounds to 2.55. Reporting x₁ instead of x₂ gives 2.857142857, which rounds to 2.86. Dropping the +5 in the denominator, using xₙ₊₁ = 20 ÷ xₙ, gives x₁ = 20 ÷ 2 = 10 and x₂ = 20 ÷ 10 = 2, which is 2.00. A sign error in the denominator, using xₙ₊₁ = 20 ÷ (xₙ − 5), gives x₁ = 20 ÷ (2 − 5) = −6.666666667 and x₂ = 20 ÷ (−6.666666667 − 5) = −1.714285714, which rounds to −1.71.
13. (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.
14. (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.
15. (d) It has a solution between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3 — Since f(2.2) is negative and f(2.3) is positive, the graph of f crosses the x-axis somewhere between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3, so the equation has a solution in that interval. Choosing 'between x = −2.2 and x = −2.3' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.2 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no solution' misreads a change of sign as meaning the opposite of what it shows. Choosing 'exactly two solutions' assumes a single change of sign must give two roots, which is not what the rule guarantees.
16. (a) −3/4 — Method: the tangent at a point on a circle is perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point, so find the gradient of the radius and then take its negative reciprocal. Working: the radius joins (0, 0) to (6, 8), so its gradient is 8 ÷ 6, which cancels to 4/3. Turning 4/3 upside down gives 3/4, and changing the sign gives −3/4. Answer: the gradient of the tangent is −3/4. The distractors: 4/3 is the gradient of the radius itself, quoted without taking the perpendicular at all; −4/3 changes the sign but leaves the fraction the same way up, so the two gradients do not multiply to give −1; 3/4 turns the fraction upside down but keeps it positive, which is the other half of the same rule left undone.
17. (c) 2.26 — Method: apply the formula repeatedly, keeping the whole display each time, and stop when two values in a row round to the same 2 decimal places; that shared rounded value is the solution to that accuracy. Working: x₁ = ∛(2 × 2 + 7) = ∛11 = 2.22398…; x₂ = ∛(2 × 2.22398… + 7) = ∛11.44796… = 2.25377…; x₃ = ∛11.50754… = 2.25767…; x₄ = ∛11.51534… = 2.25818…. Now x₃ and x₄ both round to 2.26, so the sequence has settled. Answer: 2.26. The distractors: 2.22 is x₁ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops after one use of the formula; 2.25 is x₂ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops as soon as two values look close instead of waiting until two consecutive values round to the same figure; 1.91 is ∛7, which comes from ignoring the 2x term and solving x³ = 7 instead.
18. (a) 8 — f(x − 1) means every input to f is reduced by 1 before it is looked up. At x = 2, the input to f becomes 2 − 1 = 1, so f(x − 1) at x = 2 is f(1) = 8. Reading f(2) = 4 directly from the table, without applying the shift, gives 4. Shifting in the wrong direction, using x + 1 = 3 instead of x − 1 = 1, gives f(3) = 1. Confusing f(x − 1) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(2) = 4 and then subtracting 1 — gives 3.