🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (a) 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households — Method: work out the probability inside the restricted group of garden owners, then work out the probability across the whole survey, and compare the two. Working: 54 of the 120 households with a garden own a dog, so the conditional probability is 54 divided by 120, which is 0.45. Across the whole survey 80 of the 200 households own a dog, which is 0.4. Since 0.45 is not 0.4, having a garden changes the chance of owning a dog and the two events are not independent. Answer: 0.45, different from 0.4 for all the households. The distractors: 0.27 is 54/200, dividing the households with both by the whole survey instead of by the 120 with a garden; 0.675 is 54/80, the probability that a household has a garden given that it owns a dog, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round; 0.4 is 80/200, the probability of owning a dog with the garden information never used, which is why that route also reports no difference.
2. (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.
3. (a) 2.55 — x₁ = 20 ÷ (2 + 5) = 20 ÷ 7 = 2.857142857. x₂ = 20 ÷ (2.857142857 + 5) = 20 ÷ 7.857142857 = 2.545454545, which rounds to 2.55. Reporting x₁ instead of x₂ gives 2.857142857, which rounds to 2.86. Dropping the +5 in the denominator, using xₙ₊₁ = 20 ÷ xₙ, gives x₁ = 20 ÷ 2 = 10 and x₂ = 20 ÷ 10 = 2, which is 2.00. A sign error in the denominator, using xₙ₊₁ = 20 ÷ (xₙ − 5), gives x₁ = 20 ÷ (2 − 5) = −6.666666667 and x₂ = 20 ÷ (−6.666666667 − 5) = −1.714285714, which rounds to −1.71.
4. (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.
5. (b) (12, −9) — Two enlargements one after the other combine into a single scale factor: 1.5 × 2 = 3. Multiplying a vector by a scalar means multiplying both the top number and the bottom number by it: top = 4 × 3 = 12, bottom = −3 × 3 = −9, giving (12, −9). A candidate who adds the scale factor to each number instead of multiplying gets (4 + 3, −3 + 3) = (7, 0). A candidate who multiplies the top number but leaves the bottom number unchanged gets (12, −3). A candidate who multiplies the bottom number but leaves the top number unchanged gets (4, −9). The correct column vector for the poster is (12, −9).
6. (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.
7. (b) 143 — fg(4) means f(g(4)): work out g(4) first, then substitute the result into f. g(4) = 3 × 4 = 12, then f(12) = 12² − 1 = 144 − 1 = 143. Working out gf(4) instead swaps the order: f(4) = 4² − 1 = 15, then g(15) = 3 × 15 = 45 — that is the wrong composition. Treating f(x) as x − 1 (forgetting to square the input) gives f(12) = 12 − 1 = 11. Applying g twice instead of applying g then f gives g(g(4)) = g(12) = 3 × 12 = 36, which mixes up which function should be applied second.
8. (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).
9. (a) y = (4/3)x + 25/3 — The radius from (0, 0) to (−4, 3) has gradient 3 ÷ (−4) = −3/4. The tangent is perpendicular to the radius, so its gradient is the negative reciprocal, 4/3. Using y − y₁ = m(x − x₁) with the point (−4, 3): y − 3 = (4/3)(x + 4), so y = (4/3)x + 16/3 + 3 = (4/3)x + 25/3. Using the radius's own gradient, −3/4, instead of taking the perpendicular gradient, gives y − 3 = (−3/4)(x + 4), which simplifies to y = −(3/4)x once the −3 and +3 in the constant cancel out. Taking the reciprocal of the radius's gradient but keeping the wrong sign, using −4/3 instead of 4/3, gives y = −(4/3)x − 7/3. Correctly finding the gradient 4/3 and expanding the bracket, but forgetting to add the y-coordinate 3 at the end, gives y = (4/3)x + 16/3.
10. (d) −3 — Substitute y = 11 into y = 5 − 2x, giving 11 = 5 − 2x. Subtracting 5 from both sides gives 6 = −2x, so x = 6 ÷ (−2) = −3. A candidate who mishandles the negative sign when rearranging, treating the equation as 6 = 2x, gets x = 3. A candidate who correctly finds −2x = 6 but forgets to divide by 2 at all gets x = 6. A candidate who adds 5 and 11 instead of subtracting, getting 2x = 16, gets x = 8.
11. (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.
12. (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.
13. (b) 5.00 — Continuing the iteration: x₁ = √(2 × 1 + 15) = √17 = 4.1231, x₂ = √(2 × 4.1231 + 15) = √23.2462 = 4.8214, x₃ = √(2 × 4.8214 + 15) = √24.6428 = 4.9642, x₄ = √(2 × 4.9642 + 15) = √24.9284 = 4.9928, and the values keep climbing towards 5.00 as n increases (the limit L satisfies L² = 2L + 15, so L² − 2L − 15 = 0, giving L = 5). Choosing 4.99 stops after x₄, one iteration before the value has settled fully to 5.00. Choosing 17.00 uses the value under the very first square root (2 × 1 + 15 = 17) as if that number itself were the limit. Choosing 1.00 assumes the sequence never moves from the starting value x₀.
14. (d) 4.521 — x₁ = √(3 × 4 + 7) = √19 = 4.358898944. x₂ = √(3 × 4.358898944 + 7) = √20.076696833 = 4.480702716. x₃ = √(3 × 4.480702716 + 7) = √20.442108148 = 4.521294964, which rounds to 4.521. Mislabelling the starting value x₀ as x₁, so that the working stops one iteration too early, reports the true x₂ = 4.480702716, which rounds to 4.481. Working out one iteration too many reports the true x₄ = √(3 × 4.521294964 + 7) = 4.534741987, which rounds to 4.535. Applying the formula in the wrong order, calculating √(3xₙ) + 7 at every step instead of √(3xₙ + 7), gives, from x₀ = 4: √12 + 7 = 10.464101615, then √(3 × 10.464101615) + 7 = 12.602883619, then √(3 × 12.602883619) + 7 = 13.148873950, which rounds to 13.149.
15. (b) f(1) = −3 and f(2) = 3 — f(1) = 1³ − 1 − 3 = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3. f(2) = 2³ − 2 − 3 = 8 − 2 − 3 = 3. Since f(1) is negative and f(2) is positive, there is a change of sign, so a solution lies between x = 1 and x = 2. Dropping the −x term entirely gives f(1) = 1 − 3 = −2 and f(2) = 8 − 3 = 5. Using x² instead of x³ throughout gives f(1) = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3, which happens to coincide with the correct value at x = 1, but f(2) = 4 − 2 − 3 = −1, which does not show a change of sign at all. Working out −f(x) instead of f(x), a sign-flip error, gives f(1) = 3 and f(2) = −3, the correct sizes but with both signs reversed.
16. (c) The sequence diverges, moving away from x = 3 — Starting from x₀ = 2.9: x₁ = 2.9² − 6 = 2.41, x₂ = 2.41² − 6 = −0.19, x₃ = (−0.19)² − 6 = −5.96, x₄ = (−5.96)² − 6 = 29.56 — the values swing away from 3 and grow rapidly, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Choosing 'settles towards x = 3' assumes that starting close to a root is enough for a rearrangement to converge to it, which is not always true — this rearrangement changes values too steeply near x = 3 to stay there. Choosing 'settles towards x = −2' assumes a diverging sequence must eventually land on the other root; instead it runs away to increasingly large values. Choosing 'stays constant at 2.9' ignores that applying the formula changes the value at every step.
17. (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.
18. (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.