🔺 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. (b) (x + 2)/3 — Start with y = 3x − 2 and swap x and y: x = 3y − 2. Add 2 to both sides: x + 2 = 3y. Divide both sides by 3: y = (x + 2)/3, so f⁻¹(x) = (x + 2)/3. Writing x/3 + 2 comes from dividing only the 3y term by 3 and leaving the +2 outside the division — the 2 must be added before you divide, not after. Writing (x − 2)/3 comes from keeping the subtraction sign instead of flipping it to addition when the −2 is moved across the equals sign. Writing 3x + 2 comes from swapping x and y but never actually solving for y — just changing the sign of the constant term.
3. (c) 9/16 — Method: two steps. Total the patients who had a flu jab, since the patient picked is known to be one of them, then divide the over 65s who had a jab by that total. Working: 90 patients over 65 and 70 patients aged 65 or under had a jab, so 160 patients had one. The over 65s give 90/160, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 10 gives 9/16. Answer: the probability is 9/16. The distractors: 7/16 is 70/160, the probability that the patient picked is aged 65 or under, which is the other part of the same restricted group; 3/4 is 90/120, the probability that a patient had a jab given that they are over 65, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round and needs the 120 patients over 65; 9/40 is 90/400, dividing by every patient on the list instead of by the 160 who had a jab.
4. (b) −3/4 — The tangent to a circle at a point is always perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point. The radius from (0, 0) to (3, 4) has gradient 4/3. The gradient of a line perpendicular to a line with gradient m is the negative reciprocal, −1/m, so the tangent's gradient here is −3/4. Using the radius's own gradient, forgetting that the tangent is perpendicular to it, gives 4/3. Negating the radius's gradient without also taking the reciprocal gives −4/3. Taking the reciprocal of the radius's gradient without negating it gives 3/4.
5. (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.
6. (a) 2(3x + 1) = 6x + 2 — Expanding 2(3x + 1) = 6x + 2 gives an expression that matches the right-hand side exactly for every value of x — it is an identity. 4x − 3 = 3x + 5 is an ordinary equation with one solution, x = 8. 7 − x = x − 7 is also an ordinary equation with one solution, x = 7. 5x + 1 = 5(x + 1) never holds for any value of x at all, since expanding the right-hand side gives 5x + 5, and 5x + 1 = 5x + 5 would require 1 = 5, which is impossible.
7. (b) Q was faster on average and more consistent — Method: compare the medians for the average and the interquartile ranges for the spread, remembering that a shorter time is faster and a smaller interquartile range means more consistent. Working: the median for class Q is 35 seconds against 38 seconds for class P, so class Q was faster on average; the interquartile range for class P is 46 − 24 = 22 seconds and for class Q it is 44 − 30 = 14 seconds, so class Q's times are more tightly grouped. Answer: class Q was faster on average and more consistent. The distractors: calling Q slower comes from comparing the lower quartiles, 30 against 24, as though a quartile were the average; calling Q less consistent comes from using the gap between the median and the upper quartile as the spread, 44 − 35 = 9 against 46 − 38 = 8, instead of the full interquartile range; the statement that Q was both slower and less consistent comes from making both of those mistakes together.
8. (a) (4, −8), a minimum point — The transformation x → x + 1 inside f translates the graph 1 unit to the LEFT, so the x-coordinate becomes 5 − 1 = 4. The minus sign in front of f reflects the graph in the x-axis, so the y-coordinate becomes −8, and a reflection in the x-axis turns every maximum into a minimum, so (4, −8) is a minimum point. Writing '(4, −8), a maximum point' gets the coordinates right but forgets that a reflection in the x-axis swaps maximum and minimum points. Writing '(6, −8), a minimum point' comes from translating 1 unit to the RIGHT instead of the left — f(x + 1) always moves the graph in the negative x-direction. Writing '(4, 8), a minimum point' gets the x-coordinate and the type right, but forgets to actually negate the y-coordinate, even though it does correctly reclassify the point as a minimum.
9. (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'.
10. (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.
11. (b) Translate −90° in x, then translate −2 in y. — cos(x + 90°) translates the graph 90° in the NEGATIVE x-direction, since a positive shift inside the bracket moves a graph left, not right, and subtracting 2 afterwards translates it 2 units in the negative y-direction (down). So the sequence is: translate −90° in x, then translate −2 in y. Using +90° in x reverses the direction of the horizontal shift — the sign inside the bracket moves the graph the opposite way to what it looks like. Using +2 in y reverses the direction of the vertical shift; subtracting 2 outside the function moves the graph down, not up. Describing the −2 as a reflection in the x-axis is wrong because a reflection turns positive y-values negative and vice versa, whereas here every y-value is simply reduced by the fixed amount 2, which is what a translation does, not a reflection.
12. (c) xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ) — Method: a formula xₙ₊₁ = f(xₙ) is a correct rearrangement when the equation x = f(x) turns back into the equation you started with, so rearrange x³ + 4x − 9 = 0 by making the cube the subject. Working: x³ + 4x − 9 = 0 gives x³ = 9 − 4x, because the 4x and the 9 each change sign as they cross the equals sign; taking the cube root of both sides gives x = ∛(9 − 4x), which is the formula xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ). Answer: xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ). The distractors: ∛(9 + 4xₙ) comes from writing x³ = 9 + 4x, moving the 4x across the equals sign without changing its sign; (9 + xₙ³)/4 comes from making the linear term the subject but keeping the sign of the cube, writing 4x = 9 + x³ when the equation gives 4x = 9 − x³; ∛(9 − 4xₙ³) cubes the x in the linear term as well, changing a term the original equation never cubed.
13. (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.
14. (d) Reflect in the y-axis, +2 in x; roots 3, −2 — f(2 − x) is zero exactly when 2 − x equals one of f's roots: 2 − x = −1 or 2 − x = 4. Solving each correctly (x = 2 − (−1) = 3, and x = 2 − 4 = −2) gives the new roots x = 3 and x = −2. This is the same as reflecting y = f(x) in the y-axis to get f(−x), then translating 2 units in the positive x-direction to get f(−(x − 2)) = f(2 − x). Solving 2 − x = k as x = k − 2 instead of x = 2 − k is a sign slip when rearranging, and gives x = −3 and x = 2. Translating +2 in x with no reflection at all uses f(x − 2), whose roots are the original roots plus 2: x = 1 and x = 6 — this misses the reflection completely. Assuming 'no overall change' wrongly treats a reflection-and-translation pair as always cancelling out, when here the roots genuinely move, from x = −1 and x = 4 to x = 3 and x = −2.
15. (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.
16. (c) 75 — Method: the number in a class is the area of its bar, frequency density × class width, so work out the frequency of each class that lies at or above 10 minutes and add them. Working: the class 10 ≤ t < 25 is 15 minutes wide with a frequency density of 3.2, giving 3.2 × 15 = 48 members; the class 25 ≤ t < 55 is 30 minutes wide with a frequency density of 0.9, giving 0.9 × 30 = 27 members; the total charged is 48 + 27 = 75. Answer: 75 members pay the extra charge. The distractors: 4.1 comes from adding the two frequency densities, 3.2 + 0.9, as though each height were a count; 93 comes from including the class 0 ≤ t < 10 as well, 1.8 × 10 = 18 added to 48 and 27, which charges every member; 27 comes from using only the class 25 ≤ t < 55 and forgetting that 10 ≤ t < 25 is also at or above 10 minutes.
17. (b) y = f(−x) — y = f(−x) reflects the graph of y = f(x) in the y-axis: every x-coordinate changes sign. The x-intercepts −3 and 7 become 3 and −7, matching the second graph's intercepts −7 and 3. A point already on the y-axis is unaffected, since −0 = 0, so the y-intercept (0, 21) stays exactly where it is — matching the second graph as well. y = −f(x) leaves the x-intercepts unchanged at −3 and 7, since f(x) = 0 exactly where −f(x) = 0, which does not match; it also sends the y-intercept to (0, −21), a second mismatch. y = −f(−x) does send the x-intercepts to the right places, −7 and 3, but it sends the y-intercept to (0, −21) instead of (0, 21), so it fails the second clue. y = f(x) − 4 moves every point down 4, sending the y-intercept to (0, 17) instead of (0, 21), so it fails the y-axis clue. Test each option against BOTH clues — the pair of x-intercepts and the point on the y-axis — because more than one option gets only one of the two right.
18. (d) Formula A gives £39 and Formula B gives £39, and since 3(2n + 5) expands to 6n + 15 for every value of n, the stallholder is correct. — Formula A: 3(2 × 4 + 5) = 3 × 13 = £39. Formula B: 6 × 4 + 15 = 24 + 15 = £39. Expanding Formula A algebraically gives 3(2n + 5) = 6n + 15, which is identical to Formula B for every value of n, not just n = 4, so the stallholder is correct — this is an identity, not a coincidence. The option giving £29 for Formula A comes from multiplying only the 2n by 3 and forgetting to also multiply the 5, then adding the unmultiplied 5: 3 × 2 × 4 = 24, + 5 = 29. The two options that reach the correct numbers but reject the stallholder's claim both use faulty reasoning — matching values at one value of n, or counting terms, does not decide whether two expressions are identical for every n; expanding the bracket does.