🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (c) The sequence diverges, moving away from x = 3 — Starting from x₀ = 2.9: x₁ = 2.9² − 6 = 2.41, x₂ = 2.41² − 6 = −0.19, x₃ = (−0.19)² − 6 = −5.96, x₄ = (−5.96)² − 6 = 29.56 — the values swing away from 3 and grow rapidly, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Choosing 'settles towards x = 3' assumes that starting close to a root is enough for a rearrangement to converge to it, which is not always true — this rearrangement changes values too steeply near x = 3 to stay there. Choosing 'settles towards x = −2' assumes a diverging sequence must eventually land on the other root; instead it runs away to increasingly large values. Choosing 'stays constant at 2.9' ignores that applying the formula changes the value at every step.
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. (c) 7/19 — Method: 'at least two black' covers two cases — all three black, and exactly two black. Work out the probability of each along a tree, add them, then use P(all three black | at least two black) = P(all three black) ÷ P(at least two black). Working: P(all three black) = 9/13 × 8/12 × 7/11 = 504/1716 = 42/143. For exactly two black, one order is black, black, white = 9/13 × 8/12 × 4/11 = 288/1716; the white sock could be drawn first, second or third, so there are 3 such orders, giving 3 × 288/1716 = 864/1716 = 72/143. P(at least two black) = 42/143 + 72/143 = 114/143. P(all three black | at least two black) = (42/143) ÷ (114/143) = 42/114 = 7/19. Answer: 7/19. Watch out: stopping at 42/143 gives the unconditioned probability that all three are black — it ignores that you already know at least two of them are. Dividing by the 'exactly two black' probability on its own gives 7/12, and forgets that the all-black outcomes are themselves part of the 'at least two black' group, so they must be inside the denominator, not left out of it. And 7/11 answers a different, easier question — the probability the THIRD sock is black given the FIRST TWO specifically are black — not 'at least two of the three, in any order, are black'.
4. (c) Correct: 3y = 4 − x gives f⁻¹(x) = (4 − x)/3 — Swap x and y: x = 4 − 3y. Add 3y to both sides and subtract x from both sides: 3y = 4 − x. Divide by 3: y = (4 − x)/3, which is exactly what Ben wrote — his rearrangement is correct. Check with a value: f(1) = 4 − 3 = 1, and Ben's formula gives (4 − 1)/3 = 1, which matches. 'Correct, but only because f is its own inverse' gives the right verdict for a false reason — f(f(x)) = 4 − 3(4 − 3x) = 9x − 8, which is not x, so f is not self-inverse; Ben's rearrangement is correct for the ordinary algebraic reason above, not because of any special property of f. 'Wrong: sign kept, giving (−4 − x)/3' comes from not carrying the swap through consistently — testing x = 1 gives (−4 − 1)/3 = −5/3, which does not equal 1, so it is wrong. 'Wrong: correct inverse is (x − 4)/3' comes from writing 3y = x − 4 instead of 3y = 4 − x, a sign slip when isolating y — testing x = 1 gives (1 − 4)/3 = −1, which again does not equal 1.
5. (c) 0.25 — Method: P(B | A) = P(A and B) ÷ P(A). Working: P(B | A) = 0.15 ÷ 0.6 = 0.25. Answer: 0.25. Watch out: multiplying 0.6 by 0.15 instead of dividing gives 0.09, and subtracting 0.15 from 0.6 gives 0.45 — neither uses the conditional probability formula. Leaving the answer as 0.15 mistakes the probability of A and B happening together for the probability of B once you already know A has happened — those are different quantities.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (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).
9. (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.
10. (a) y = 2ˣ + 3 — A translation of 3 units in the positive y-direction shifts the whole graph up, which means adding to the output: y = f(x) + k with k = 3, so the image is y = 2ˣ + 3. Adding the 3 inside the power instead of outside it, which translates the graph horizontally instead of vertically, gives y = 2ˣ⁺³. Using a negative 3, which moves the graph down instead of up, gives y = 2ˣ − 3. Mistaking 2ˣ for the linear expression 2x and adding 3 inside brackets gives y = 2(x + 3).
11. (b) (12, −9) — Two enlargements one after the other combine into a single scale factor: 1.5 × 2 = 3. Multiplying a vector by a scalar means multiplying both the top number and the bottom number by it: top = 4 × 3 = 12, bottom = −3 × 3 = −9, giving (12, −9). A candidate who adds the scale factor to each number instead of multiplying gets (4 + 3, −3 + 3) = (7, 0). A candidate who multiplies the top number but leaves the bottom number unchanged gets (12, −3). A candidate who multiplies the bottom number but leaves the top number unchanged gets (4, −9). The correct column vector for the poster is (12, −9).
12. (a) (8, 2) — Method: translating a point by a column vector means adding the vector's top number to the x-coordinate and its bottom number to the y-coordinate. Working: x-coordinate 2 + 6 = 8; y-coordinate 5 + (−3) = 2. Answer: B = (8, 2). A candidate who ignores the negative sign and adds 3 instead of −3 gets (8, 8). A candidate who translates in the reverse direction, subtracting the vector from A instead of adding it, gets (−4, 8). A candidate who swaps the vector's top and bottom numbers before adding gets (−1, 11).
13. (c) 37.5 — The tangent at (18, 24) is 18x + 24y = 900 (using ax + by = r² with a = 18, b = 24, r² = 900). Setting x = 0 to find the y-intercept: 24y = 900, so y = 37.5. Choosing 900 skips the division by 24 and just repeats the constant. Choosing 50 divides the constant by the x-coefficient 18 instead of the y-coefficient 24. Choosing 1.25 uses the radius 30 instead of r² = 900 as the constant before dividing.
14. (d) 12/17 — Method: the person picked is known to have passed, so the sample space is everyone who passed; divide the course takers who passed by that total. Working: 120 course takers and 50 others passed, so 170 people passed. The course takers who passed give 120/170, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 10 gives 12/17. Answer: the probability is 12/17. The distractors: 4/5 is 120/150, the probability that someone passed given that they took the course, which reverses the condition and the event; 12/25 is 120/250, dividing by everyone who sat the test rather than by the 170 who passed; 17/25 is 170/250, the probability that a person picked from everyone sitting the test passed, which answers a different question altogether.
15. (a) 3 — y = f(x + 2) is f(x) translated 2 units to the LEFT (inside the bracket, adding moves the graph in the negative x-direction). The root moves with the whole graph: 5 − 2 = 3. Moving right instead of left gives 7; assuming a bracket shift leaves the root unchanged gives 5; writing down the shift amount 2 itself skips the translation altogether.
16. (a) −1 — Reflecting y = sin x in the x-axis gives y = −sin x, so g(x) = −sin x. Since sin 90° = 1, g(90) = −1. Reading sin 90° = 1 and forgetting to apply the reflection gives 1. Misreading the angle as 0° instead of 90° gives sin 0° = 0, so 0. Confusing sin 90° with sin 30° = 0.5, then reflecting it, gives −0.5.
17. (c) 0.5 per gram — Method: turn the two known bars into frequencies using area, subtract from the total to find how many letters are left, then divide that frequency by the width of the last class to get its height. Working: the first bar covers 50 g at a frequency density of 1.2, giving 1.2 × 50 = 60 letters, and the second covers 50 g at 1.8, giving 1.8 × 50 = 90 letters; together that is 60 + 90 = 150 letters, so 200 − 150 = 50 letters remain; the class 100 ≤ m < 200 is 100 g wide, so its frequency density is 50 ÷ 100 = 0.5 per gram. Answer: 0.5 per gram. The distractors: 0.25 per gram comes from dividing the remaining 50 letters by the upper class boundary, 200, instead of by the class width of 100; 2 per gram comes from dividing the class width by the frequency, 100 ÷ 50, reversing the formula; 1.4 per gram comes from subtracting only the first bar's 60 letters, leaving 140, and then dividing by 100.
18. (d) a = 4 — Expand the left-hand side: (2x + 3)(x + a) = 2x² + 2ax + 3x + 3a = 2x² + (2a + 3)x + 3a. For this to match 2x² + 11x + 12 for every value of x, the x-coefficients must be equal and the constants must be equal: 2a + 3 = 11 and 3a = 12. Both give a = 4, so a = 4. Writing a = 12 comes from the constant-term equation 3a = 12: reading it as saying a itself is 12, rather than dividing both sides by 3. Writing a = 8 comes from the x-coefficient equation 2a + 3 = 11: working out 11 − 3 = 8 correctly but then stopping, without dividing by the 2 in front of a. Writing a = −4 comes from rearranging 2a + 3 = 11 the wrong way round, as 2a = 3 − 11 = −8, which gives a = −4 instead of a = 4.