🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (b) 4.39 — x₁ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4²) = ∛(150 − 48) = ∛102 = 4.672 (unrounded). x₂ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4.672²) = ∛(150 − 65.49) = ∛84.51 = 4.39 (2 d.p.). Choosing 4.67 stops after only one iteration, giving x₁ instead of x₂. Choosing 84.51 finds the value inside the cube root for x₂ but never takes the cube root. Choosing 6.32 comes from adding 3xₙ² instead of subtracting it inside the root, which does not match the given formula.
2. (a) −8 — −f(x) means take the output value from the table and change its sign, without changing which x-value is looked up. From the table, f(1) = 8, so −f(1) = −8. Reading f(1) = 8 from the table but forgetting to apply the negative sign gives 8. Misreading the row and using f(0) = 5 instead of f(1) = 8, then negating it, gives −5. Confusing −f(x) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(1) = 8 and subtracting 1 instead of negating — gives 7.
3. (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.
4. (d) Formula A gives £39 and Formula B gives £39, and since 3(2n + 5) expands to 6n + 15 for every value of n, the stallholder is correct. — Formula A: 3(2 × 4 + 5) = 3 × 13 = £39. Formula B: 6 × 4 + 15 = 24 + 15 = £39. Expanding Formula A algebraically gives 3(2n + 5) = 6n + 15, which is identical to Formula B for every value of n, not just n = 4, so the stallholder is correct — this is an identity, not a coincidence. The option giving £29 for Formula A comes from multiplying only the 2n by 3 and forgetting to also multiply the 5, then adding the unmultiplied 5: 3 × 2 × 4 = 24, + 5 = 29. The two options that reach the correct numbers but reject the stallholder's claim both use faulty reasoning — matching values at one value of n, or counting terms, does not decide whether two expressions are identical for every n; expanding the bracket does.
5. (b) 0.458 — x₁ = (0.4² + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.16 ÷ 7 = 0.4514 (unrounded, 0.451428...). x₂ = (x₁² + 3) ÷ 7 = (0.2038 + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.2038 ÷ 7 = 0.458 (3 d.p.). Choosing 0.632 divides only the 3 by 7 instead of dividing the whole sum x₁² + 3 by 7. Choosing 0.451 repeats the calculation for x₁ instead of moving on to x₂. Choosing 0.493 uses x₁ itself instead of x₁² inside the formula.
6. (d) P lies outside the circle — The squared distance from the origin to P is 8² + 9² = 64 + 81 = 145, which is greater than 100, so P lies outside the circle. Choosing 'P lies inside the circle' comes from adding the coordinates directly (8 + 9 = 17) instead of squaring and adding them, and comparing 17 with 100. Choosing 'P lies on the circle' comes from squaring 9 incorrectly as 36 (as if it were 6²) instead of 81, giving 64 + 36 = 100, equal to the right-hand side. Choosing 'Cannot be determined' wrongly assumes the equation of the line itself is needed, when the radius and the distance from the origin to P are already enough.
7. (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.
8. (c) 46 — Method: the cumulative frequency table gives the number of runners below each time; to find the number at or above a time, subtract that cumulative frequency from the total. Working: the cumulative frequency for t < 40 is 74, so 120 runners in total take away the 74 who finished in under 40 minutes: 120 − 74 = 46. Answer: 46 runners took 40 minutes or longer. Watch which boundary and which subtraction you use: reading off t < 50 instead of t < 40 and subtracting, 120 − 110 = 10, answers a different question, '50 minutes or longer'; giving 74 itself as the answer reports how many finished below 40 minutes, the opposite of what was asked; and subtracting the two nearby cumulative frequencies, 110 − 74 = 36, finds how many took between 40 and 50 minutes, not everyone from 40 minutes upward.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (d) y = x² − 10x + 21 — A translation by the vector (3, 0) moves the graph 3 units in the positive x-direction, which means replacing every x in the equation with (x − 3). Substitute into x² − 4x: (x − 3)² − 4(x − 3). Expand (x − 3)² to x² − 6x + 9, and expand −4(x − 3) to −4x + 12. Collecting like terms, x² − 6x + 9 − 4x + 12 = x² − 10x + 21, so the image is y = x² − 10x + 21. Substituting (x + 3) instead of (x − 3) — translating in the wrong direction — gives y = x² + 2x − 3. Adding 3 straight onto the original equation, treating the translation as vertical instead of horizontal, gives y = x² − 4x + 3. Expanding (x − 3)² as x² − 3x + 9, using −3x instead of −6x for the middle term, and then combining with −4(x − 3) gives y = x² − 7x + 21.
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. (c) 2.61 — The limit L satisfies L = 12 ÷ (L + 2), so L(L + 2) = 12, giving L² + 2L − 12 = 0 and L = (−2 + √52) ÷ 2 = 2.6056, which is 2.61 to 2 decimal places (the early iterates 4, 2, 3, 2.4, 2.73, ... oscillate around this value before settling). Choosing 3.00 reads off x₃, one of the early oscillating values, before the sequence has settled close to the limit. Choosing 4.00 reads off x₁, the very first iterate, not the value the sequence approaches. Choosing 6.00 comes from writing the limit equation as L = 12 ÷ 2, leaving L itself out of the denominator.
14. (d) 45 — Method: a cumulative frequency is a running total — it counts everybody in every class up to and including the one that ends at the value given. Working: the classes that lie wholly below 30 minutes are 0 ≤ t < 10, 10 ≤ t < 20 and 20 ≤ t < 30, with frequencies 6, 14 and 25, so the running total is 6 + 14 = 20 and then 20 + 25 = 45. Answer: 45 people took less than 30 minutes. The distractors: 25 comes from quoting the frequency of the class 20 ≤ t < 30 on its own instead of the running total; 65 comes from accumulating one class too many and including 30 ≤ t < 40, which is 45 + 20; 35 comes from accumulating from the top downwards, 15 + 20, which counts the people who took 30 minutes or more rather than fewer.
15. (b) x² + y² = 1369 — For a circle centred at the origin, the radius squared equals the sum of the squares of the coordinates of any point on it: r² = 12² + 35² = 144 + 1225 = 1369. The equation is x² + y² = 1369. x² + y² = 2209 comes from adding the coordinates first and then squaring the sum: (12 + 35)² = 47² = 2209, instead of squaring each coordinate separately. x² + y² = 1225 comes from using only 35² and leaving out the 12² term. x² + y² = 144 comes from using only 12² and leaving out the 35² term.
16. (d) (−2, 6) — Method: add the top numbers of both vectors to the starting x-coordinate, and the bottom numbers of both vectors to the starting y-coordinate. Working: x-coordinate 2 + 3 + (−7) = −2; y-coordinate −1 + 5 + 2 = 6. Answer: (−2, 6). A candidate who only applies vector u and forgets v gets (5, 4). A candidate who only applies vector v and forgets u gets (−5, 1). A candidate who works out the combined vector u + v but forgets to add it to the starting point gets (−4, 7).
17. (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.
18. (a) 31.5 — Method: to estimate the mean from a histogram, first turn each bar into a frequency (frequency density × class width), then use mean = Σ(frequency × midpoint) ÷ Σfrequency, with the midpoint standing in for every value in that class. Working: the four classes have widths 20, 10, 20 and 20, so their frequencies are 1 × 20 = 20, 3 × 10 = 30, 2 × 20 = 40 and 0.5 × 20 = 10, which do add to the 100 vehicles stated. Their midpoints are 10, 25, 40 and 60, so Σfx = 20 × 10 + 30 × 25 + 40 × 40 + 10 × 60 = 200 + 750 + 1600 + 600 = 3150, and the mean is 3150 ÷ 100 = 31.5. Answer: the estimated mean speed is 31.5 mph. Watch which numbers you treat as the frequencies and which as the values: using the frequency densities themselves as the frequencies, without multiplying by the class widths first, gives 1 × 10 + 3 × 25 + 2 × 40 + 0.5 × 60 = 195 spread over 1 + 3 + 2 + 0.5 = 6.5, and 195 ÷ 6.5 = 30, a mean built from the wrong 'frequencies' altogether; averaging the four midpoints on their own, (10 + 25 + 40 + 60) ÷ 4 = 33.75, ignores how many vehicles are actually in each class; and using each class's lower boundary in place of its midpoint, 20 × 0 + 30 × 20 + 40 × 30 + 10 × 50 = 2300 and 2300 ÷ 100 = 23, systematically underestimates every class by roughly half its width.