🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (a) (9, −5) — Method: multiply every part of q by 2, then subtract the matching part from p. Working: 2q = (−4, 6); p − 2q gives top 5 − (−4) = 9 and bottom 1 − 6 = −5. Answer: p − 2q = (9, −5). A candidate who forgets to double q first, working out p − q instead, gets (7, −2). A candidate who doubles p instead of q, working out 2p − q, gets (12, −1). A candidate who adds 2q instead of subtracting it gets (1, 7).
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) Translate +5 in x, then reflect in the x-axis. — Translating y = x² by 5 units in the positive x-direction gives y = (x − 5)². Reflecting this in the x-axis, which replaces y with −y, gives y = −(x − 5)², matching the target. Using a translation of −5 in x instead gives y = (x + 5)², and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −(x + 5)² — the sign inside the bracket is wrong. Reflecting in the y-axis first does nothing to y = x², since (−x)² = x², so translating afterwards only reaches y = (x − 5)² with no negative sign at all. Translating by 5 units in y instead of x gives y = x² + 5, and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −x² − 5, a different curve altogether — a vertical shift does not create the (x − 5)² term the target equation needs.
4. (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.
5. (d) 7/18 — Method: the pupil picked is known to study French, so the sample space shrinks to the 18 French students; divide the number who study both languages by 18. Working: 7 of the pupils study both French and German, and all 7 of them are among the 18 French students, so the probability is 7/18, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 7/18. The distractors: 7/30 divides by the whole class, keeping the restricted numerator but the full denominator; 1/2 is 7/14, which conditions on the German students instead, answering the probability that a German student also studies French; 7/25 uses 18 + 14 minus 7 = 25, the number who study at least one language, which is a larger group than the one the question restricts you to.
6. (c) 0.04 — Method: 'made by machine B and faulty' is the second branch of a tree followed after the first, so multiply the probability of machine B by the probability of a fault given machine B. Working: machine B makes 0.4 of the bolts, and 0.1 of those bolts are faulty, so the probability is 0.4 × 0.1 = 0.04. Answer: the probability is 0.04. The distractors: 0.5 comes from adding 0.4 and 0.1 instead of multiplying, treating two stages of one journey as two separate outcomes; 0.1 gives the fault rate for machine B on its own, as though every bolt in the factory came from machine B, so the 40% share is never used; 0.07 is 0.6 × 0.05 added to 0.4 × 0.1, the probability that a bolt is faulty whichever machine made it, which answers a question about all the production rather than about machine B.
7. (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).
8. (c) y = 3x + 2 — Method: divide the change in the outputs by the change in the inputs to find the multiplier, then put one pair of values into the rule to find the number added on. Working: the output rises by 11 − 5 = 6 while the input rises by 3 − 1 = 2, so the multiplier is 6 ÷ 2 = 3; with an input of 1, 3 × 1 = 3 and the output is 5, so 2 is added. Answer: y = 3x + 2, checked against the second pair by 3 × 3 + 2 = 11. The distractors: y = 3x − 2 comes from finding the multiplier 3 and then subtracting the 2 instead of adding it; y = 2x + 3 comes from swapping the multiplier and the number added on; y = x + 4 comes from assuming the input is multiplied by 1 and using 5 − 1 = 4 as the number added on.
9. (c) Only x = 5 satisfies 3x + 5 = 20, not every value of x. — 3x + 5 = 20 is only true when x = 5, since 3 × 5 + 5 = 20; for any other value of x the two sides are not equal, so it is an equation, not an identity. Saying it cannot be simplified confuses simplifying with the equation/identity distinction, which is about how many values of x make it true. Saying it has an = sign is not a valid test, since identities are also written with an = or ≡ sign. A number on the right-hand side does not decide it either — what matters is whether both sides match for every value of x, not the form of the right-hand side.
10. (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.
11. (c) Translate +1 in y; new range 0 ≤ y ≤ 2 — Adding 1 to sin x translates the graph 1 unit in the positive y-direction, and every y-value on the range increases by 1: −1 + 1 = 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, giving a new range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 2. A translation in the x-direction would not add anything to the y-values, so 'Translate +1 in x; range unchanged' correctly leaves the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 for that (wrong) transformation, but the transformation itself is not what y = sin x + 1 shows. 'Translate +1 in y; new range −2 ≤ y ≤ 0' correctly spots the translation but subtracts 1 from each bound instead of adding it. 'Reflect in the x-axis' mistakes the transformation for a reflection rather than a translation; reflecting sin x in the x-axis does leave the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 unchanged in size, but that is not the transformation y = sin x + 1 actually applies.
12. (b) (6, 2) — The overall journey from house to park is the sum of the two vectors: top = 2 + 4 = 6, bottom = 5 + (−3) = 2, giving (6, 2). A candidate who subtracts the second vector from the first instead of adding gets (2 − 4, 5 − (−3)) = (−2, 8). A candidate who subtracts the other way round gets (4 − 2, −3 − 5) = (2, −8). A candidate who forgets the negative sign on the second vector's bottom number and adds 3 instead of −3 gets (6, 8). Because the journeys join end to end, the correct resultant vector is (6, 2).
13. (c) (−35, −55) — Add the three stages component by component to find the drone's position relative to base: (30+(−10)+15, 40+20+(−5)) = (35, 55). The flight back to base is the negative of this vector, reversing both numbers: (−35, −55). (35, 55) is the vector from base to the drone's position — it forgets to reverse direction for the return flight. (−35, 55) only reverses the top number. (35, −55) only reverses the bottom number.
14. (c) −0.5 — fg(x) = f(g(x)) = f(x²) = x² + 2. gf(x) = g(f(x)) = g(x + 2) = (x + 2)² = x² + 4x + 4. Setting fg(x) = gf(x): x² + 2 = x² + 4x + 4. Subtract x² from both sides: 2 = 4x + 4. Subtract 4 from both sides: −2 = 4x, so x = −0.5. Writing 1.5 comes from adding the 4 instead of subtracting it: 4x = 2 + 4 = 6, giving x = 1.5. Writing 'no solution' comes from expanding (x + 2)² as x² + 4 using (a + b)² = a² + b², losing the middle term — the equation then reads x² + 2 = x² + 4, which has no solution, but the expansion itself is wrong. Writing 0 comes from treating gf(x) as g(x) + f(x) instead of g(f(x)): x² + (x + 2) = x² + 2 gives x = 0, but that adds the two functions rather than composing them.
15. (c) 1/56 — Method: for draws without replacement, multiply a chain of three fractions where both the numerator (reds remaining) and the denominator (counters remaining) fall by one after each draw. Working: P(all three red) = 3/8 × 2/7 × 1/6 = 6/336 = 1/56. Answer: 1/56. Watch out: using 3/8 for all three draws (27/512) treats the counters as if they were replaced each time. Reducing only the numerator each draw (3/8 × 2/8 × 1/8) forgets that the total number of counters left in the bag also falls. And reducing only the denominator while keeping the numerator at 3 each time (3/8 × 3/7 × 3/6) forgets that a red counter has actually left the bag.
16. (d) −2 — y = f(x) − 6 is f(x) shifted down by 6, so every y-value on the graph decreases by 6. At x = 0, f(0) = 4, so the new y-value is 4 − 6 = −2. Adding 6 instead of subtracting gives 10; writing down the shift itself, −6, or leaving the original value 4 unchanged both skip the translation altogether.
17. (a) y = −2x + 3 — Method: find the step in the outputs for each step of 1 in the input — falling outputs mean a negative multiplier — then read off the output when the input is 0, because that is the number added on. Working: the outputs 5, 3, 1, −1 fall by 2 each time x rises by 1, so x is multiplied by −2; the output at x = 0 is 3, so 3 is added. Answer: y = −2x + 3, checked at x = 2 by −2 × 2 + 3 = −1. The distractors: y = 2x + 3 comes from taking the size of the step, 2, as the multiplier and ignoring the fact that the outputs are falling; y = −2x − 3 comes from using the correct multiplier but writing the number added on as −3 instead of the output 3 listed at x = 0; y = −x + 4 comes from taking the multiplier as −1, its size read from the step of 1 in the inputs instead of the step of 2 in the outputs and its sign from the fact that the outputs fall, and then fitting the number added on to the pair x = −1, y = 5.
18. (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).