🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (b) 4.39 — x₁ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4²) = ∛(150 − 48) = ∛102 = 4.672 (unrounded). x₂ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4.672²) = ∛(150 − 65.49) = ∛84.51 = 4.39 (2 d.p.). Choosing 4.67 stops after only one iteration, giving x₁ instead of x₂. Choosing 84.51 finds the value inside the cube root for x₂ but never takes the cube root. Choosing 6.32 comes from adding 3xₙ² instead of subtracting it inside the root, which does not match the given formula.
3. (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).
4. (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'.
5. (c) −1.5 — Since n = k × m, dividing a number in n by the matching number in m gives k: k = −6 ÷ 4 = −1.5 (check with the bottom numbers: −9 ÷ 6 = −1.5, the same value, confirming n is a scalar multiple of m). 1.5 has the correct size but is missing the negative sign. −10 comes from subtracting the top numbers, −6 − 4, instead of dividing them. −24 comes from multiplying the top numbers, −6 × 4, instead of dividing them.
6. (c) x + 18 — Expand −3(2x − 6) by multiplying both terms by −3: −3 × 2x = −6x and −3 × (−6) = 18, giving 7x − 6x + 18 = x + 18. Writing x − 18 comes from not flipping the sign of the −6 inside the bracket, so −3 × (−6) is treated as −18 instead of +18. Writing x + 6 comes from forgetting to multiply the −6 by 3, only carrying its sign. Writing 13x − 18 comes from treating the whole bracket as being added rather than subtracted, so 3(2x − 6) = 6x − 18 is added to 7x.
7. (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.
8. (b) (5, 1) — First scale a by 2: 2a = (2×3, 2×(−2)) = (6, −4). Then add b component by component: (6+(−1), −4+5) = (5, 1). (2, 3) is a + b without doubling a first. (4, 6) doubles both a and b instead of only a. (7, −9) subtracts b from 2a instead of adding it.
9. (d) 2x² − 4x + 3 — fg(x) means f(g(x)): substitute g(x) into f in place of x. g(x) = x − 1, so fg(x) = f(x − 1) = 2(x − 1)² + 1. Expanding (x − 1)² = x² − 2x + 1, so fg(x) = 2(x² − 2x + 1) + 1 = 2x² − 4x + 2 + 1 = 2x² − 4x + 3. Writing 2x² comes from working out gf(x) instead — g(f(x)) = f(x) − 1 = (2x² + 1) − 1 = 2x², which applies the functions in the wrong order. Writing 2x² − 1 comes from expanding (x − 1)² as x² − 1, dropping the middle term, so f(x − 1) becomes 2(x² − 1) + 1 = 2x² − 2 + 1 = 2x² − 1. Writing 2x² − 4x + 2 comes from expanding correctly but forgetting the final + 1 from f, stopping at 2(x² − 2x + 1) = 2x² − 4x + 2.
10. (a) 4(x + 3) = 20 and 4x + 3 = 11 when x = 2, so the two expressions are not equivalent, because the bracket means the 3 must be added before multiplying by 4. — Substituting x = 2: 4(x + 3) = 4 × 5 = 20, and 4x + 3 = 8 + 3 = 11. The two values are different, and expanding 4(x + 3) algebraically gives 4x + 12, which can never equal 4x + 3 (that would require 12 = 3) — so the two expressions are never equivalent, for any value of x. The option claiming they become equal for a larger x is wrong: 4x + 12 = 4x + 3 has no solution at all. The option claiming they are equivalent because they share the terms 4x and 3 ignores that the bracket changes the constant term. The option that calculates 4(x + 3) as 11 ignores the bracket completely, applying the 4 only to the x term.
11. (c) 5/18 — Method: knowing the total is even cuts the 36 equally likely outcomes down to the even ones, so count those first and then count how many of them give 8. Working: the even totals occur as 2 once, 4 three times, 6 five times, 8 five times, 10 three times and 12 once, which is 18 outcomes. The total is 8 for 2 and 6, 3 and 5, 4 and 4, 5 and 3, and 6 and 2, which is 5 outcomes. The probability is 5/18, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 5/18. The distractors: 5/36 keeps the right count of ways to make 8 but divides by all 36 outcomes, ignoring the fact that the odd totals have already been ruled out; 1/6 treats the six even totals 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 as equally likely and picks one of them, which they are not; 1/11 treats the eleven possible totals from 2 to 12 as equally likely and uses neither the counting nor the condition.
12. (d) Yes, because 3² + 4² = 25. — A point lies on the circle x² + y² = 25 exactly when substituting its coordinates makes the equation true. Squaring each coordinate separately and adding: 3² + 4² = 9 + 16 = 25, which matches the right-hand side, so (3, 4) does lie on the circle. Adding the coordinates without squaring them, 3 + 4 = 7, and then reasoning that 7 is less than 25 happens to reach the same verdict, but it is not testing the equation of the circle at all — the circle equation depends on x² + y², not x + y. Squaring the sum instead of summing the squares, (3 + 4)² = 49, not 25, wrongly rules the point out. Doubling each coordinate instead of squaring it, so that 4² is taken as 8, gives 9 + 8 = 17, not 25, which also wrongly rules the point out.
13. (c) 20 ≤ h < 40 — Method: with 80 values the lower quartile is the 80 ÷ 4 = 20th value in order, so build a running total until it first reaches 20. Working: the running totals are 14, then 14 + 22 = 36, then 52, then 80; the 20th plant is past 14 but not past 36, so it lies in the second class. Answer: the lower quartile lies in the class 20 ≤ h < 40. The distractors: 0 ≤ h < 20 comes from believing that the bottom quarter of the data must all sit in the first class, when that class holds only 14 of the 80 plants; 40 ≤ h < 50 comes from using the position 80 ÷ 2 = 40 and so locating the median rather than the lower quartile; 50 ≤ h < 80 comes from counting 20 plants down from the tallest instead of up from the shortest, which locates the upper quartile at the 60th plant.
14. (b) y = −3x/4 + 25 — Method: a straight line that touches a circle at one point is a tangent there, so it is perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point; find the gradient of the radius, take its negative reciprocal, then substitute the point of contact into y − y₁ = m(x − x₁). Working: the radius from (0, 0) to (12, 16) has gradient 16 ÷ 12, which cancels to 4/3, so the tangent has gradient −3/4. Substituting gives y − 16 = −3/4(x − 12), so y − 16 = −3x/4 + 9 and y = −3x/4 + 25. Answer: y = −3x/4 + 25. The distractors: y = 3x/4 + 7 turns the gradient of the radius upside down but leaves it positive, so the perpendicular step is only half done; y = −4x/3 + 32 changes the sign of the radius gradient without turning it upside down, which is the other half left undone; y = −3x/4 − 25 uses the correct gradient but substitutes the point of contact with both signs reversed, writing y + 16 = −3/4(x + 12).
15. (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).
16. (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.
17. (c) −4 — f(2) = 7, and y = f(x) + a passing through (2, 3) means f(2) + a = 3, so 7 + a = 3, giving a = 3 − 7 = −4. Writing a = 4 comes from subtracting the wrong way round, 7 − 3 instead of 3 − 7. Writing a = 10 comes from adding the two y-values instead of subtracting one from the other. Writing a = 3 comes from taking the new y-coordinate as the value of a directly, without accounting for the original y-value of 7 at all.
18. (d) x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, 12) — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis, to get y = −f(x), negates every y-value but leaves every x-value fixed. The x-intercepts happen where y = 0, and −0 = 0, so they are unaffected: y = −f(x) still crosses the x-axis at x = −2 and x = 6. The y-intercept is the value at x = 0: f(0) = −12, so −f(0) = 12, giving the point (0, 12) — the sign flips because the y-intercept is a nonzero y-value, unlike the roots. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from confusing −f(x) with f(−x) — reflecting in the y-axis instead of the x-axis, which negates the x-values of the intercepts (turning −2 into 2 and 6 into −6) but leaves f(0) unchanged, since f(−0) = f(0) = −12. Writing 'x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from forgetting that −f(x) is a reflection at all, and assumes both intercepts stay exactly as they were. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, 12)' correctly negates the y-intercept but wrongly negates the x-intercepts too, as if a reflection in the x-axis also flipped the sign of every x-value.