🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (b) (n + 1)² − n² = 2n + 1 — (n + 1)² = n² + 2n + 1, so (n + 1)² − n² = n² + 2n + 1 − n² = 2n + 1, which is odd because it is one more than the even number 2n. Expanding (n + 1)² as n² + 1 uses the false rule (a + b)² = a² + b², and subtracting n² from that leaves just 1 — always expand (a + b)² as a² + 2ab + b². Writing n² + 2n + 1 expands correctly but never carries out the subtraction of n². Writing 2n forgets the constant term left after subtracting.
3. (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.
4. (c) (2n + 1)² + (2n + 3)² = (4n² + 4n + 1) + (4n² + 12n + 9) = 8n² + 16n + 10 = 8(n² + 2n + 1) + 2, and n² + 2n + 1 is an integer, so the sum is always 2 more than a multiple of 8. — Expand each square carefully: (2n + 1)² = 4n² + 4n + 1 and (2n + 3)² = 4n² + 12n + 9, since the cross term is 2 × 2n × 3 = 12n. Adding gives 8n² + 16n + 10, and factorising out 8 from every term that can hold one gives 8(n² + 2n + 1) + 2; since n² + 2n + 1 is always an integer, the sum is always 2 more than a multiple of 8. The attempt reaching 8(n² + 2n) + 10 has the correct expansion but stops the factorisation one step early — it never pulls a further 8 out of the 10 (10 = 8 + 2), so 'always 10 more than a multiple of 8' should be reduced to 'always 2 more than a multiple of 8'. The attempt reaching 2(4n² + 8n + 5) also has the correct expansion, and the factorisation is true, but 'always even' only shows the sum is a multiple of 2 — being even is necessary but nowhere near sufficient to be a multiple of 8, and the argument never finds the extra factor of 4. The fourth attempt makes an expansion slip, using (2n + 3)² = 4n² + 9 instead of 4n² + 12n + 9 — dropping the 12n cross term entirely — so it works from the wrong expression 8n² + 4n + 10 throughout, and no amount of correct working afterwards can recover the right conclusion.
5. (a) (0, 7) and (0, −7) — A tangent is horizontal where the radius to that point is vertical, i.e. where the point lies on the y-axis. On x² + y² = 49, setting x = 0 gives y² = 49, so y = 7 or y = −7. The points are (0, 7) and (0, −7). (7, 0) and (−7, 0) comes from swapping the condition — these are the points where the tangent is VERTICAL, not horizontal (the radius there is horizontal). (0, 7) only comes from finding one valid point but forgetting that y² = 49 also gives the negative root, y = −7. (7, 0) only combines both mistakes: the wrong axis, and only one of the two roots.
6. (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.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (a) 2x − 1 — Swap x and y: x = (y + 1)/2. Multiply both sides by 2: 2x = y + 1. Subtract 1 from both sides: y = 2x − 1, so f⁻¹(x) = 2x − 1. Writing 2x + 1 comes from not flipping the sign on the 1 when it is moved across the equals sign. Writing (x − 1)/2 comes from reversing the sign of the 1 but leaving the ÷2 from the original rule in place, instead of turning it into ×2. Writing x/2 − 1 comes from dividing only the x by 2 and treating the 1 as already outside the fraction.
11. (a) (15, 0) — Method: the tangent is perpendicular to the radius at the point of contact, so find the gradient of the radius, take its negative reciprocal, write the equation of the tangent, then substitute y = 0 because every point on the x-axis has y-coordinate 0. Working: the radius from (0, 0) to (3, 6) has gradient 6 ÷ 3 = 2, so the tangent has gradient −1/2. Substituting into y − 6 = −1/2(x − 3) gives y = −0.5x + 7.5. Setting y = 0 gives 0.5x = 7.5, so x = 15 and P is (15, 0). Answer: (15, 0). The distractors: (0, 7.5) is where the same tangent crosses the y-axis, reached by setting x = 0 instead of y = 0; (0, 0) comes from using the gradient of the radius, 2, for the tangent, which gives the line y = 2x through the centre and so crosses the x-axis at the origin; (6, 0) comes from changing the sign of the radius gradient without turning it upside down, which gives y = −2x + 12.
12. (d) 4x + 5 — A minus sign directly before a bracket changes the sign of both terms inside it: 6x − (2x − 5) = 6x − 2x + 5 = 4x + 5. The option 4x − 5 comes from only changing the sign of the 2x term and not the −5, giving 6x − 2x − 5. The option 8x − 5 comes from adding 2x instead of subtracting it, as if the minus sign did not apply to the bracket, giving 6x + 2x − 5. The option 8x + 5 repeats that same addition mistake and also changes the sign of the −5 term.
13. (d) P lies outside the circle — The squared distance from the origin to P is 8² + 9² = 64 + 81 = 145, which is greater than 100, so P lies outside the circle. Choosing 'P lies inside the circle' comes from adding the coordinates directly (8 + 9 = 17) instead of squaring and adding them, and comparing 17 with 100. Choosing 'P lies on the circle' comes from squaring 9 incorrectly as 36 (as if it were 6²) instead of 81, giving 64 + 36 = 100, equal to the right-hand side. Choosing 'Cannot be determined' wrongly assumes the equation of the line itself is needed, when the radius and the distance from the origin to P are already enough.
14. (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.
15. (c) a + (1/2)c — Method: OABC is a parallelogram, so OB = OA + AB, and since AB is equal and parallel to OC, AB = c; this gives OB = a + c. M is the midpoint of AB, so AM = (1/2)AB = (1/2)c. Working: OM = OA + AM = a + (1/2)c. Answer: OM = a + (1/2)c. Adding the whole of AB instead of half of it gives a + c, which is OB, not OM; halving the whole diagonal OB instead of just AB gives (1/2)a + (1/2)c, the midpoint of OB rather than of AB; and flipping the sign on the c-term gives a − (1/2)c, which points back the wrong way along AB. Halve only the side you are told to halve, and check the sign before you commit to an answer.
16. (d) 5√2 — For a circle x² + y² = r², the 50 on the right-hand side is r², not r, so the radius is √50. Writing 50 as 25 × 2, the largest square factor times what remains, gives √50 = √25 × √2 = 5√2. Forgetting to square-root 50 at all and giving the value of r² instead gives 50. Halving 50 instead of taking its square root gives 25. Using 25 as the number left outside the square root sign, instead of as the number under it, gives the wrongly simplified 25√2.
17. (c) 145 g — Method: find the position of the median from the total frequency, locate the class that contains it, then use linear interpolation inside that class, assuming the apples in it are spread evenly. Working: the median is the 100 ÷ 2 = 50th apple; the running totals are 10, then 10 + 30 = 40, then 40 + 40 = 80, so the 50th apple lies in the class 140 ≤ m < 160; it is the 50 − 40 = 10th of the 40 apples in that class, and the class is 20 g wide, so the median is 140 + (10 ÷ 40) × 20 = 140 + 5 = 145. Answer: an estimated median of 145 g. The distractors: 150 g comes from giving the midpoint of the class that contains the median instead of interpolating inside it; 140 g comes from stopping at the lower boundary of that class, which locates the class but not the value; 155 g comes from measuring the 5 g step down from the upper boundary, 160 − 5, instead of up from the lower boundary.
18. (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.