🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (d) (6, 6) — y = f(x − 4) + 1 combines two translations: the −4 inside the brackets moves the graph 4 units to the RIGHT, and the +1 outside the brackets moves it 1 unit UP. Applying both to (2, 5): add 4 to the x-coordinate 2, and add 1 to the y-coordinate 5, giving (6, 6). Moving left instead of right, as the minus sign inside the bracket might suggest, gives (−2, 6) or (−2, 4); forgetting the horizontal shift altogether and only applying the vertical one gives (2, 6).
2. (d) x² − 7x − 3 = 0 — Method: an iteration settles where the next value equals the one before it, so both can be written as the same letter x; replace every xₙ by x, square both sides to clear the square root, and collect all the terms on one side. Working: x = √(7x + 3) gives x² = 7x + 3 on squaring both sides; subtracting 7x and 3 from both sides gives x² − 7x − 3 = 0. Answer: x² − 7x − 3 = 0. The distractors: x² + 7x − 3 = 0 moves the 7x across the equals sign without changing its sign; x² − 7x + 3 = 0 makes that same slip on the constant instead, leaving the 3 positive as it crosses; x² − 7x − 9 = 0 squares the expression term by term, squaring the 3 to give 9 as though squaring √(7x + 3) gave 7x + 9, which is the (a + b)² = a² + b² mistake dressed as a square root.
3. (d) x₂ closer: f(x₂) = 0.0225, nearer to 0 — f(2.6) = 2.6² − 7 = 6.76 − 7 = −0.24, and f(2.65) = 2.65² − 7 = 7.0225 − 7 = 0.0225. The closer a value of x is to the root, the closer f(x) is to zero — regardless of sign. Since |0.0225| = 0.0225 is much smaller than |−0.24| = 0.24, x₂ = 2.65 is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: −0.24 is the smaller value' comes from comparing the SIGNED values of f(x) rather than their distances from zero — −0.24 is indeed less than 0.0225 as a number, but that does not mean x₁ is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: f(x₁) negative ⇒ nearer root' invents a rule that a negative f(x) means x is closer to the root; the sign of f(x) only tells you which side of the root x is on, not how close it is. 'x₂ is the exact root, since f(x₂) ≈ 0' misreads f(x₂) = 0.0225 as zero; the true root is √7 ≈ 2.6458, so f(2.65) is close to zero but not equal to it, and x₂ is an approximation, not the exact root.
4. (b) xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ² + 3) ÷ 5 — Starting from x² = 5x − 3, add 3 to both sides: x² + 3 = 5x. Divide both sides by 5: x = (x² + 3) ÷ 5. Writing this as an iteration gives xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ² + 3) ÷ 5. xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ² − 3) ÷ 5 comes from a sign error when moving the −3 across the equals sign — it should become +3, not stay as −3. xₙ₊₁ = 5(xₙ² + 3) comes from multiplying by 5 instead of dividing by 5 when isolating x. xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ + 3) ÷ 5 comes from dropping the index on x², using xₙ instead of xₙ².
5. (d) x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, 12) — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis, to get y = −f(x), negates every y-value but leaves every x-value fixed. The x-intercepts happen where y = 0, and −0 = 0, so they are unaffected: y = −f(x) still crosses the x-axis at x = −2 and x = 6. The y-intercept is the value at x = 0: f(0) = −12, so −f(0) = 12, giving the point (0, 12) — the sign flips because the y-intercept is a nonzero y-value, unlike the roots. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from confusing −f(x) with f(−x) — reflecting in the y-axis instead of the x-axis, which negates the x-values of the intercepts (turning −2 into 2 and 6 into −6) but leaves f(0) unchanged, since f(−0) = f(0) = −12. Writing 'x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from forgetting that −f(x) is a reflection at all, and assumes both intercepts stay exactly as they were. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, 12)' correctly negates the y-intercept but wrongly negates the x-intercepts too, as if a reflection in the x-axis also flipped the sign of every x-value.
6. (c) 3.153 — x₁ = √(4 × 1 + 1) = √5 = 2.236067977. x₂ = √(4 × 2.236067977 + 1) = √9.944271908 = 3.153453965, which rounds to 3.153. Reporting x₁ instead of x₂ gives 2.236067977, which rounds to 2.236. A sign error inside the root, using xₙ₊₁ = √(4xₙ − 1) instead of √(4xₙ + 1), gives x₁ = √3 = 1.732050808 and x₂ = √(4 × 1.732050808 − 1) = √5.928203232 = 2.434790182, which rounds to 2.435. Applying the formula in the wrong order, working out √(4xₙ) + 1 at every step instead of √(4xₙ + 1), gives x₁ = √4 + 1 = 3 and x₂ = √(4 × 3) + 1 = 4.464101615, which rounds to 4.464.
7. (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.
8. (d) 44 — Method: a cumulative frequency counts everything below a value, so the frequency of a class is the running total at the top of the class minus the running total at the bottom of it. Working: the running total below 20 kg is 96 and the running total below 10 kg is 52, so the number of boxes in the class 10 ≤ m < 20 is 96 − 52 = 44. Answer: 44 boxes. The distractors: 96 comes from quoting the running total at 20 kg itself, which counts every box below 20 kg rather than only those in this class; 34 comes from subtracting the wrong pair, 52 − 18, which gives the class 5 ≤ m < 10 instead; 54 comes from subtracting from the grand total, 150 − 96, which gives the boxes of 20 kg or more.
9. (c) Statement (ii) — Statement (ii) opens with 'Since n(n + 1) is even', treating the very fact the proof is meant to establish as if it were already known — that is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion to help derive itself. Statement (i) only names the two consecutive integers as n and n + 1; it makes no claim about whether their product is even, so it introduces nothing circular. Statement (iii) states the conclusion, and would be a valid final step if statement (ii) had reached 'one of n and n + 1 is even' by a genuine argument, such as considering the cases where n is even or odd separately. Saying the proof assumes nothing circular is wrong, because statement (ii)'s opening clause is exactly that assumption.
10. (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.
11. (b) x² + y² = 169 — Method: a circle centred on the origin has equation x² + y² = r², and every point on it satisfies that equation, so substituting the coordinates of a point that lies on the circle gives r² directly. Working: substituting x = 5 and y = 12 gives 5² + 12² = 25 + 144 = 169, so r² = 169 and the circle is x² + y² = 169. Answer: x² + y² = 169. The distractors: x² + y² = 13 uses the radius, √169 = 13, where r² belongs, which is the confusion between r and r² made in the other direction; x² + y² = 17 adds the two coordinates, 5 + 12, instead of adding their squares; x² + y² = 119 subtracts the squares, 144 − 25, treating 12 as the hypotenuse of the right-angled triangle rather than as one of the shorter sides.
12. (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.
13. (d) 25 ≤ t < 45 — Method: the height of a bar on a histogram is the frequency density, so work out frequency ÷ class width for every class and compare the four heights. Working: 20 ÷ 10 = 2 for the first class; 12 ÷ 15 = 0.8 for the second; 50 ÷ 20 = 2.5 for the third; 60 ÷ 30 = 2 for the fourth. Answer: the largest of 2, 0.8, 2.5 and 2 is 2.5, so the tallest bar is the one for 25 ≤ t < 45. The distractors: 45 ≤ t < 75 comes from picking the class with the greatest frequency, 60, and treating a frequency as a height — but that class is three times as wide, so its 60 competitors are spread thinly; 10 ≤ t < 25 comes from dividing the class width by the frequency, 15 ÷ 12, and picking the largest of those reversed values; 0 ≤ t < 10 comes from assuming the narrowest class must always give the tallest bar, which is only true when the frequencies are equal.
14. (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.
15. (d) −3 — Substitute y = 11 into y = 5 − 2x, giving 11 = 5 − 2x. Subtracting 5 from both sides gives 6 = −2x, so x = 6 ÷ (−2) = −3. A candidate who mishandles the negative sign when rearranging, treating the equation as 6 = 2x, gets x = 3. A candidate who correctly finds −2x = 6 but forgets to divide by 2 at all gets x = 6. A candidate who adds 5 and 11 instead of subtracting, getting 2x = 16, gets x = 8.
16. (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.
17. (c) x + 18 — Expand −3(2x − 6) by multiplying both terms by −3: −3 × 2x = −6x and −3 × (−6) = 18, giving 7x − 6x + 18 = x + 18. Writing x − 18 comes from not flipping the sign of the −6 inside the bracket, so −3 × (−6) is treated as −18 instead of +18. Writing x + 6 comes from forgetting to multiply the −6 by 3, only carrying its sign. Writing 13x − 18 comes from treating the whole bracket as being added rather than subtracted, so 3(2x − 6) = 6x − 18 is added to 7x.
18. (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.