🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (d) line 2 — Line 1 correctly represents three consecutive integers using n. Line 2 adds them: n + (n + 1) + (n + 2). Collecting terms: the n-terms give 3n, and the constants give 1 + 2 = 3, so the correct sum is 3n + 3, not 3n + 2 as Line 2 states — this is the first error, an arithmetic slip in collecting the constant terms. Lines 3 and 4 both follow correctly from Line 2's incorrect result, but that result itself is wrong: the true sum, 3n + 3 = 3(n + 1), is a multiple of 3 for every whole number n. Check the working of each line against what came before it, in order, rather than judging whether the final conclusion feels right — an error that flips the conclusion can sit several lines before the line that states it.
4. (b) −3/4 — The tangent to a circle at a point is always perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point. The radius from (0, 0) to (3, 4) has gradient 4/3. The gradient of a line perpendicular to a line with gradient m is the negative reciprocal, −1/m, so the tangent's gradient here is −3/4. Using the radius's own gradient, forgetting that the tangent is perpendicular to it, gives 4/3. Negating the radius's gradient without also taking the reciprocal gives −4/3. Taking the reciprocal of the radius's gradient without negating it gives 3/4.
5. (d) (1/2)a + (1/2)c — Method: X is the midpoint of AC, so OX = OA + (1/2)AC, with AC = c − a. Working: OX = a + 1/2(c − a) = a − (1/2)a + (1/2)c = (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Answer: OX = (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Since OB = a + c, this is exactly half of OB, so OX = (1/2)OB, meaning X lies on OB at its midpoint too — the two diagonals bisect each other. Forgetting to halve AC at all gives a + c, which is OB itself, not its midpoint; halving only the c-term gives (1/2)a + c; and a sign error on the c-term gives (1/2)a − (1/2)c. Halve the whole of AC, both terms together, and add it to OA rather than to a alone.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (b) 55 — Method: count the classes that lie wholly above 8 minutes, then use linear interpolation for the class that 8 cuts through, assuming the delays in that class are spread evenly. Working: the class 10 ≤ d < 20 lies wholly above 8 and holds 25 buses; the value 8 lies in the class 5 ≤ d < 10, which is 5 minutes wide and holds 75 buses, and the part above 8 runs from 8 to 10, a width of 2, so the estimated share is (2 ÷ 5) × 75 = 30 buses; the estimate is 30 + 25 = 55. Answer: about 55 refunds. The distractors: 100 comes from adding the whole of the class 5 ≤ d < 10, 75 + 25, and so refunding buses only 5 minutes late; 25 comes from using only the class 10 ≤ d < 20 and ignoring the part class that 8 minutes cuts through; 70 comes from taking the part of the class from 5 up to 8 instead of from 8 up to 10, giving (3 ÷ 5) × 75 = 45 and then 45 + 25.
9. (a) 9/25 — Method: P(badminton | tennis) = n(tennis and badminton) ÷ n(tennis) — restrict to the tennis-players, then find what fraction of them also play badminton. Working: n(tennis and badminton) = 18, n(tennis) = 50, so P(badminton | tennis) = 18/50 = 9/25. Answer: 9/25. Watch out: dividing by 40 (the badminton total) finds P(tennis | badminton) instead of P(badminton | tennis) — the wrong direction. Dividing by 90 (all the members named in the question) ignores that you already know the member plays tennis. And dividing by 72 (50 + 40 − 18, the number who play at least one of the two sports) answers a question about the union, not the condition you were given.
10. (d) It diverges, growing rapidly without limit. — x₁ = 2³ − 2 = 8 − 2 = 6. x₂ = 6³ − 2 = 216 − 2 = 214. x₃ = 214³ − 2 = 9800344 − 2 = 9800342. The values 6, 214, 9800342, … grow far larger at every step, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Checking whether the sequence converges to a fixed value near 2 fails, since the terms grow enormously instead of levelling off. Checking for a repeating pair of values also fails, since 6, 214 and 9800342 are all different, with no sign of a return to 6. x₀ = 2 is a fixed point only if 2³ − 2 = 2, but 2³ − 2 = 6, not 2, so the sequence does not stay constant.
11. (d) 3 — Method: the height of a bar is its frequency density, frequency ÷ class width, so work out both heights and divide one by the other. Working: the class 0 ≤ t < 4 is 4 minutes wide and holds 30 visits, so its frequency density is 30 ÷ 4 = 7.5 per minute; the class 4 ≤ t < 20 is 16 minutes wide and holds 40 visits, so its frequency density is 40 ÷ 16 = 2.5 per minute; dividing the heights, 7.5 ÷ 2.5 = 3. Answer: the first bar is 3 times as tall. The distractors: 0.75 comes from comparing the frequencies, 30 ÷ 40, as though the frequencies were the heights, which is the mistake the unequal widths are there to expose; 4 comes from comparing the class widths, 16 ÷ 4, instead of the heights; 5 comes from subtracting the two frequency densities, 7.5 − 2.5, which answers how much taller rather than how many times taller.
12. (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.
13. (a) Outside: OQ² = 221 > r² = 169 — OQ² = 10² + 11² = 100 + 121 = 221. Comparing this with r² = 169: since 221 > 169, OQ > r, so Q lies outside the circle — this is the correct verdict AND the correct working. 'Outside: OQ = 21 (10 + 11) > r = 13' reaches the same Outside verdict, but by invalid working: it adds the coordinates instead of squaring them (10 + 11 = 21, rather than 10² + 11² = 221), so the stated 'OQ' of 21 is not a distance at all — the verdict happens to match, but the method is wrong. 'Inside: OQ ≈ 14.87 < r² = 169' correctly finds the distance OQ = √221 ≈ 14.87, but then compares that DISTANCE with r² = 169 instead of with r = 13 — comparing two different kinds of quantity gives a meaningless, and here wrong, verdict. 'Inside: OQ² = 221 < (2r)² = 676' confuses the radius with the diameter: it compares OQ² with the diameter squared, (2 × 13)² = 676, instead of with r² = 169.
14. (d) 11 — f⁻¹(x) = 5 means x = f(5), since applying f to both sides undoes the inverse. f(5) = 2 × 5 + 1 = 11. Writing 2 comes from confusing f⁻¹(x) = 5 with f(x) = 5, and solving 2x + 1 = 5 instead: 2x = 4, x = 2. Writing 9 comes from finding f⁻¹(x) with a sign error, f⁻¹(x) = (x + 1)/2 instead of (x − 1)/2, then setting this equal to 5: x + 1 = 10, x = 9. Writing 6 comes from finding f⁻¹(x) without dividing by 2 at all, f⁻¹(x) = x − 1, then setting this equal to 5: x = 6.
15. (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.
16. (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.
17. (c) 3/20 — Method: the second fraction is quoted for the perennials only, so it is a conditional probability and the two fractions multiply. Working: the probability that a plant is a perennial is 3/5, and given that it is a perennial the probability that it is in flower is 1/4. Multiplying gives 3 × 1 over 5 × 4, which is 3/20. Answer: the probability is 3/20. The distractors: 17/20 comes from adding the fractions, 12/20 plus 5/20, instead of multiplying, which would be right only for two outcomes that cannot both happen; 4/9 comes from adding the numerators and the denominators separately, the classic 3 + 1 over 5 + 4; 1/4 quotes the flowering fraction on its own, as though every plant in the garden centre were a perennial, so the 3/5 is never used.
18. (a) It has a solution between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7 — f(2.6) is negative and f(2.7) is positive, so the graph of f crosses the x-axis between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7, meaning the equation has a solution there. Choosing 'x = 2.6 is a solution' reads an end of the interval as the root itself, but f(2.6) = −1.424, which is not zero — the change of sign locates a root between the two values, it does not land on either of them. Choosing 'between x = −2.6 and x = −2.7' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.6 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no root in this interval' misapplies the rule, which needs a CHANGE of sign — and a change of sign is exactly what these two values show.