🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (a) 7.9 m — Method: the iteration converges on the width of the plot, so run the formula three times from the starting value and then add 4 m, because the length is 4 m greater than the width. Working: x₁ = √(30 − 4 × 3) = √18 = 4.24264…; x₂ = √(30 − 4 × 4.24264…) = √13.02943… = 3.60963…; x₃ = √(30 − 4 × 3.60963…) = √15.56147… = 3.94480…. The estimate for the length is 3.94480… + 4 = 7.94480…, which is 7.9 m correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 7.9 m. The iteration is still oscillating at x₃, so this is the estimate that three uses of the formula give, not a settled value. The distractors: 3.9 m is x₃ itself, the width, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 7.6 m uses x₂ in place of x₃, one use of the formula short, and then adds the 4 m correctly; 15.8 m multiplies the width by 4 instead of adding 4 m to it, reading greater than as a multiplier.
3. (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.
4. (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.
5. (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.
6. (b) Translate +5 in x, then reflect in the x-axis. — Translating y = x² by 5 units in the positive x-direction gives y = (x − 5)². Reflecting this in the x-axis, which replaces y with −y, gives y = −(x − 5)², matching the target. Using a translation of −5 in x instead gives y = (x + 5)², and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −(x + 5)² — the sign inside the bracket is wrong. Reflecting in the y-axis first does nothing to y = x², since (−x)² = x², so translating afterwards only reaches y = (x − 5)² with no negative sign at all. Translating by 5 units in y instead of x gives y = x² + 5, and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −x² − 5, a different curve altogether — a vertical shift does not create the (x − 5)² term the target equation needs.
7. (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.
8. (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.
9. (a) 49 — Method: add the frequencies of the classes that lie wholly below 35 seconds, then use linear interpolation for the class that 35 cuts through, assuming the calls in that class are spread evenly across it. Working: below 30 seconds there are 15 + 24 = 39 calls; the value 35 lies in the class 30 ≤ t < 50, which is 20 seconds wide and holds 40 calls, and 35 is 35 − 30 = 5 seconds into it, so the estimated share is (5 ÷ 20) × 40 = 10 calls; the estimate is 39 + 10 = 49. Answer: about 49 calls met the target. The distractors: 79 comes from adding the whole of the class 30 ≤ t < 50, 39 + 40, and so counting calls of up to 50 seconds as being under 35; 39 comes from stopping at the class boundary 30 and ignoring the part class altogether; 69 comes from measuring the part of the class from 35 up to 50 instead of from 30 up to 35, giving (15 ÷ 20) × 40 = 30 and then 39 + 30.
10. (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.
11. (c) 1 — At x = 0, f(0) = 4. Applying the transformations in order — reflect in the x-axis first, then translate up by 5 — gives −f(0) + 5 = −4 + 5 = 1. Applying the translation but forgetting the reflection gives f(0) + 5 = 9. Applying the reflection to the whole expression, including the +5, gives −f(0) − 5 = −9. Applying the reflection but forgetting the translation gives −f(0) = −4.
12. (d) y = −2x + 10 — Method: a tangent is perpendicular to the radius drawn to the point where it touches, so work out the gradient of that radius, take its negative reciprocal for the tangent, then substitute into y − y₁ = m(x − x₁). Working: the radius joins (0, 0) to (4, 2), so its gradient is 2 ÷ 4 = 1/2; turning 1/2 upside down gives 2 and changing the sign gives −2. Substituting into y − 2 = −2(x − 4) gives y − 2 = −2x + 8, so y = −2x + 10. Answer: y = −2x + 10. The distractors: y = −0.5x + 4 changes the sign of the radius gradient but never turns it upside down, using −1/2 where −2 belongs; y = 2x − 6 turns the gradient upside down but leaves it positive, using 2 where −2 belongs; y = −2x − 10 has the correct gradient but substitutes the point with both signs reversed, writing y + 2 = −2(x + 4) instead of y − 2 = −2(x − 4).
13. (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.
14. (c) Only x = 5 satisfies 3x + 5 = 20, not every value of x. — 3x + 5 = 20 is only true when x = 5, since 3 × 5 + 5 = 20; for any other value of x the two sides are not equal, so it is an equation, not an identity. Saying it cannot be simplified confuses simplifying with the equation/identity distinction, which is about how many values of x make it true. Saying it has an = sign is not a valid test, since identities are also written with an = or ≡ sign. A number on the right-hand side does not decide it either — what matters is whether both sides match for every value of x, not the form of the right-hand side.
15. (d) line 2 — Line 1 correctly represents three consecutive integers using n. Line 2 adds them: n + (n + 1) + (n + 2). Collecting terms: the n-terms give 3n, and the constants give 1 + 2 = 3, so the correct sum is 3n + 3, not 3n + 2 as Line 2 states — this is the first error, an arithmetic slip in collecting the constant terms. Lines 3 and 4 both follow correctly from Line 2's incorrect result, but that result itself is wrong: the true sum, 3n + 3 = 3(n + 1), is a multiple of 3 for every whole number n. Check the working of each line against what came before it, in order, rather than judging whether the final conclusion feels right — an error that flips the conclusion can sit several lines before the line that states it.
16. (a) 8 — f(x − 1) means every input to f is reduced by 1 before it is looked up. At x = 2, the input to f becomes 2 − 1 = 1, so f(x − 1) at x = 2 is f(1) = 8. Reading f(2) = 4 directly from the table, without applying the shift, gives 4. Shifting in the wrong direction, using x + 1 = 3 instead of x − 1 = 1, gives f(3) = 1. Confusing f(x − 1) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(2) = 4 and then subtracting 1 — gives 3.
17. (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.
18. (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.