🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (b) 1/4 — Method: the person picked is known to be aged 30 or over, so the sample space is those 140 people; divide the number of them who had been to the cinema by 140. Working: 35 of the 140 people aged 30 or over had been to the cinema, giving 35/140. Dividing the numerator and the denominator by 35 gives 1/4. Answer: the probability is 1/4. The distractors: 7/20 is 35/100, taking the count from the older group but the total from the under 30s, which is reading across the wrong row; 7/48 is 35/240, dividing by everyone surveyed instead of by the age group named; 3/4 is 105/140, the probability that someone aged 30 or over had NOT been to the cinema, the opposite event inside the correct group.
4. (b) x² + y² = 625 — Since (7, 24) lies on the circle, x² + y² = 7² + 24² = 49 + 576 = 625, so the equation is x² + y² = 625. Choosing x² + y² = 31 adds the coordinates 7 and 24 directly instead of squaring them first. Choosing x² + y² = 576 uses only 24² and forgets to add 7². Choosing x² + y² = 49 uses only 7² and forgets to add 24².
5. (b) f(1) = −3 and f(2) = 3 — f(1) = 1³ − 1 − 3 = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3. f(2) = 2³ − 2 − 3 = 8 − 2 − 3 = 3. Since f(1) is negative and f(2) is positive, there is a change of sign, so a solution lies between x = 1 and x = 2. Dropping the −x term entirely gives f(1) = 1 − 3 = −2 and f(2) = 8 − 3 = 5. Using x² instead of x³ throughout gives f(1) = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3, which happens to coincide with the correct value at x = 1, but f(2) = 4 − 2 − 3 = −1, which does not show a change of sign at all. Working out −f(x) instead of f(x), a sign-flip error, gives f(1) = 3 and f(2) = −3, the correct sizes but with both signs reversed.
6. (d) 25 — Method: the median is estimated at position n ÷ 2 in the cumulative frequency table, then interpolated across the class it falls in: lower boundary, plus the fraction of the way through the class, times the class width. Working: there are 80 sacks, so the median sits at position 80 ÷ 2 = 40. Before the class 20 ≤ m < 30 the cumulative frequency is 22, and by the end of it, it is 58, so this class holds the 40th sack; its frequency is 58 − 22 = 36 and its width is 30 − 20 = 10. The extra distance needed into the class is 40 − 22 = 18, and 18 ÷ 36 × 10 = 5, so the median is 20 + 5 = 25. Answer: the estimated median mass is 25 kg. Watch which numbers the interpolation uses: reading off just the lower boundary of the median class, 20, ignores how far into that class the 40th sack actually falls; treating n ÷ 2 = 40 itself as the median mass mistakes a position in the list for a mass in kilograms; and using the target position, 40, as the extra distance into the class instead of subtracting the sacks already counted changes the calculation to 20 + 40 ÷ 36 × 10. That comes to 20 + 11.1 = 31.1, overshooting the class because it never subtracts the 22 sacks already counted before it.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (b) 12/19 — Method: turn the percentages into expected frequencies out of 1000, total the faulty pens, then divide supplier Y's faulty pens by that total, because the pen picked is known to be faulty. Working: supplier X provided 700 pens and 2% of them are faulty, which is 14 pens. Supplier Y provided 300 pens and 8% of them are faulty, which is 24 pens. Altogether 38 pens are faulty, so the probability is 24/38, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 2 gives 12/19. Answer: the probability is 12/19. The distractors: 3/10 is supplier Y's share of the stock, the answer before the faulty information is used at all; 3/125 is 24/1000, the probability that a pen is from supplier Y and faulty, which stops at the joint probability and never divides by the probability of a fault; 4/5 is 8 divided by 2 + 8, comparing the two fault rates as though the suppliers provided equal numbers of pens, so the 70 to 30 split is thrown away.
10. (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.
11. (a) (4, 1) — y = −f(x) reflects the graph of y = f(x) in the x-axis: every point (x, y) maps to (x, −y). Applying this to (4, −1): the x-coordinate stays 4, and the y-coordinate −1 becomes its negative, 1. Leaving the y-coordinate unchanged skips the reflection entirely, giving (4, −1); reflecting the x-coordinate instead, or reflecting both, mixes this up with a reflection in the y-axis or a rotation, giving (−4, −1) or (−4, 1).
12. (b) a = 7; turning point (4, 2) — A vertical translation y = f(x) + a moves every point on the graph up or down by a, so the x-coordinate of the turning point stays at 4 and the minimum value becomes −5 + a. Setting −5 + a = 2 and solving gives a = 7, so the new turning point is (4, 2). Rearranging −5 + a = 2 with a sign error, treating it as a = −5 − 2, gives a = −7 while still landing on the correct turning-point coordinates. Correctly finding a = 7 but then writing down the original turning point instead of the shifted one gives (4, −5). Assuming a is simply equal to the new minimum value itself, ignoring the original −5 entirely, gives a = 2.
13. (d) g is one-to-one: f(3) = f(−3), removed by x ≥ 0 — A function has an inverse only if it is one-to-one: every output must come from exactly one input. f(3) = 9 and f(−3) = 9, so two different inputs give the same output, and there is no way to send 9 back to a single input — f is not one-to-one over all real x. Restricting the domain to x ≥ 0 removes one of the two inputs behind every such pair, so g is one-to-one and does have an inverse. 'g's outputs are positive; f's could be negative' is wrong because f(x) = x² also only gives outputs of 0 or more — the outputs of f and g are identical sets; it is the INPUTS that differ, not the outputs. 'Restricting any domain always creates an inverse' is wrong because a restriction only helps if it actually removes the repeated outputs: restricting f(x) = x² to x ≥ −3 still leaves f(1) = f(−1) = 1, so that restricted function is still not one-to-one and still has no inverse. 'Squares can never be reversed, under any conditions' is wrong because √9 = 3 does reverse 3² = 9 once you know the input was non-negative — a square root just cannot tell you WHICH of two inputs you started from unless the domain has already ruled one of them out.
14. (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.
15. (a) 12.5 — Method: the tangent at A is perpendicular to the radius OA, so find the gradient of OA, take its negative reciprocal, write the equation of the tangent and find where it meets the y-axis; the length of OB is then the distance of that crossing from the origin. Working: OA runs from (0, 0) to (−6, 8), so its gradient is 8 ÷ (−6), which cancels to −4/3; the negative reciprocal of −4/3 is 3/4. Substituting into y − 8 = 3/4(x + 6) gives y = 0.75x + 4.5 + 8, so y = 0.75x + 12.5 and B is (0, 12.5). The length OB is therefore 12.5. Answer: 12.5. The distractors: 10 is the radius of the circle, quoted on the assumption that the tangent always meets an axis one radius from the centre, which is only true when the radius itself lies along that axis; 8 is the y-coordinate of A, quoted by treating the tangent as horizontal so that it keeps the height of A; 3.5 comes from turning the gradient of OA upside down without changing its sign, which gives y = −0.75x + 3.5.
16. (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).
17. (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.
18. (c) A histogram, with frequency density up the vertical axis — Method: decide which diagram makes area stand for frequency, which is the property the question asks for. Working: on a histogram the vertical axis is frequency density, so the area of a bar is frequency density × class width, and that product is the frequency; this is exactly what is wanted, and it is what allows classes of unequal width to be shown fairly. Answer: a histogram, with frequency density up the vertical axis. The distractors: a bar chart plots frequency as the height, so with unequal widths a wide class would cover far more area than a narrow class holding the same number of batteries, and area would measure nothing; a cumulative frequency diagram plots running totals against upper class boundaries, so a point on it gives how many lie below a value rather than how many lie in a class; a pie chart shows each class as a share of the whole 300 and loses the class widths entirely, so no area on it is tied to a scale of hours.