🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (d) It has a solution between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3 — Since f(2.2) is negative and f(2.3) is positive, the graph of f crosses the x-axis somewhere between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3, so the equation has a solution in that interval. Choosing 'between x = −2.2 and x = −2.3' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.2 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no solution' misreads a change of sign as meaning the opposite of what it shows. Choosing 'exactly two solutions' assumes a single change of sign must give two roots, which is not what the rule guarantees.
2. (c) 70 — Method: estimate the median from the cumulative frequency table by interpolation: find its position, n ÷ 2, locate the class it falls in, then add the fraction of the way through that class (adjusted for the cumulative frequency reached before it) to the class's lower boundary. Working: there are 180 riders, so the median is at position 180 ÷ 2 = 90. Before the class 60 ≤ d < 80 the cumulative frequency is 60, and by the end of it, 120, so the 90th rider falls in this class; its frequency is 120 − 60 = 60 and its width is 80 − 60 = 20. The extra distance needed into the class is 90 − 60 = 30, and 30 ÷ 60 × 20 = 10, so the median is 60 + 10 = 70. Answer: the estimated median distance is 70 km. Watch which numbers the interpolation actually uses: reading off just the class's lower boundary, 60, ignores how far into the class the 90th rider falls; using the target position, 90, as the extra distance instead of subtracting the 60 riders already counted before the class gives 90 ÷ 60 × 20 = 30, so 60 + 30 = 90, overshooting by treating the whole position as if none of it had already been counted; and using the total number of riders, 180, instead of half of it as the target position lands in the very last class, giving an estimate of 130 km — further than any rider is known to have ridden by that point in the table.
3. (b) 60 — Method: independence means the proportion of part timers among the cyclists is the same as the proportion among all the employees, so find that proportion and apply it to the cyclists. Working: 150 of the 400 employees work part time, which is a proportion of 0.375. Applying it to the 160 cyclists gives 0.375 × 160 = 60 employees. Answer: you would expect 60 employees. The distractors: 310 adds 150 and 160, treating the group who do both as everyone who does one thing or the other; 10 subtracts 150 from 160, reading 'both' as the difference between the two counts; 75 halves the 150 part timers, assuming that independence means they split evenly between cyclists and non cyclists, which would need exactly half the workforce to cycle.
4. (d) (1/2)a + (1/2)c — Method: X is the midpoint of AC, so OX = OA + (1/2)AC, with AC = c − a. Working: OX = a + 1/2(c − a) = a − (1/2)a + (1/2)c = (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Answer: OX = (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Since OB = a + c, this is exactly half of OB, so OX = (1/2)OB, meaning X lies on OB at its midpoint too — the two diagonals bisect each other. Forgetting to halve AC at all gives a + c, which is OB itself, not its midpoint; halving only the c-term gives (1/2)a + c; and a sign error on the c-term gives (1/2)a − (1/2)c. Halve the whole of AC, both terms together, and add it to OA rather than to a alone.
5. (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).
6. (a) x + 14 — Expand each bracket separately: 3(x + 4) = 3x + 12, and −2(x − 1) = −2x + 2 (multiply −2 by both x and −1). Combine: 3x + 12 − 2x + 2 = x + 14. Writing x + 10 comes from taking −2(x − 1) as −2x − 2, not flipping the sign of the −1 inside the bracket. Writing 5x + 10 comes from treating the second bracket as +2(x − 1) instead of subtracting it, so the x-terms are added rather than subtracted. Writing x + 13 comes from only multiplying the 2 by the x, and carrying the −1 across unmultiplied.
7. (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.
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) 842.0 — The radius to (20, 21) has gradient 21/20, so the tangent's gradient is −20/21. The tangent line is y − 21 = −20/21(x − 20), i.e. y = −20/21x + 841/21. Setting y = 0 gives the x-intercept x = 841/20 = 42.05; setting x = 0 gives the y-intercept y = 841/21 ≈ 40.048. The area of triangle OPQ is 1/2 × 42.05 × 40.048 ≈ 842.0. 1684.0 comes from multiplying the two intercepts without the 1/2 that a triangle's area needs — twice the correct area. 580.7 comes from using the circle's radius, 29, as a side of the triangle instead of the x-intercept, 42.05: 1/2 × 29 × 40.048 ≈ 580.7. 2.0 comes from a sign error in the tangent's gradient — using 20/21 instead of −20/21 — which gives a different line, with intercepts x ≈ −2.05 and y ≈ 1.952, and area 1/2 × 2.05 × 1.952 ≈ 2.0.
10. (b) y = 2x² + 14x + 19 — A translation by the vector (−2, 0) moves the graph 2 units in the negative x-direction, which means replacing x with (x + 2): 2(x + 2)² + 6(x + 2) − 1. Expanding 2(x + 2)² gives 2x² + 8x + 8, and 6(x + 2) gives 6x + 12; collecting terms 2x² + 8x + 8 + 6x + 12 − 1 simplifies to 2x² + 14x + 19. Substituting (x − 2) instead of (x + 2) — translating in the wrong direction — gives 2(x−2)² + 6(x−2) − 1, which simplifies to 2x² − 2x − 5. Distributing the outer 2 only onto the x² term of the expansion, instead of onto every term of (x + 2)², gives 2x² + 10x + 15. Dropping the −1 when collecting the constant terms, treating 8 + 12 as 20 rather than 8 + 12 − 1 as 19, gives 2x² + 14x + 20.
11. (c) 4x − 3 — ff(x) means f(f(x)): substitute f(x) into f in place of x. f(f(x)) = 2 × f(x) − 1 = 2 × (2x − 1) − 1. Expanding the bracket: 2 × (2x − 1) = 4x − 2. Combining the constant terms: −2 − 1 = −3, so f(f(x)) = 4x − 3. Writing 4x − 2 comes from expanding 2(2x − 1) correctly to get 4x − 2, then forgetting to subtract the outer 1 at all. Writing 4x² − 4x + 1 comes from reading ff(x) as f(x) multiplied by itself, (2x − 1)(2x − 1) = 4x² − 4x + 1, instead of substituting f(x) into f. Writing 4x − 1 comes from doubling the coefficient of x in the original rule directly, without actually substituting f(x) into f at all.
12. (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.
13. (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.
14. (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.
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. (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.
17. (d) 4, 3, 2, 6 — Method: frequency density = frequency ÷ class width for each class in turn; do not assume the classes are all the same width. Working: the four classes have widths 10 − 0 = 10, 30 − 10 = 20, 45 − 30 = 15 and 50 − 45 = 5. Dividing each frequency by its own width gives 40 ÷ 10 = 4, 60 ÷ 20 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 30 ÷ 5 = 6. Answer: the frequency densities, in order, are 4, 3, 2 and 6. Watch the width of each class separately: treating the last class as if it were also 10 units wide, like the first, gives 30 ÷ 10 = 3 instead of 30 ÷ 5 = 6 — the classes here are deliberately unequal, so no width can be borrowed from another class; dividing the width by the frequency instead of the frequency by the width for the third class gives 15 ÷ 30 = 0.5 in place of 2, the formula the wrong way round; and reading the frequency column straight off the table, 40, 60, 30, 30, skips the division by width altogether and reports how many fish are in each class rather than how densely packed each bar is.
18. (a) Positive x-direction, 90°; image is y = sin x. — Writing cos(x − 90°) as cos(x − a) with a = 90 shows this is a horizontal translation, y = f(x − a), which moves the graph 90° in the positive x-direction; the identity cos(x − 90°) = sin x confirms the image is y = sin x. Choosing the negative x-direction reverses the sign inside the bracket — subtracting inside the bracket always translates in the positive x-direction, not the negative one, so that statement is wrong on direction. Getting the direction right but conflating the subtraction inside the bracket with an extra reflection of the output flips the sign of the resulting graph, wrongly giving y = −sin x. Treating the subtraction as if it changed the output directly, rather than the input, wrongly calls this a vertical translation even while still correctly recalling that the image simplifies to y = sin x.