🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (b) 3 — At the limit, L = √(2L + 3). Squaring both sides: L² = 2L + 3, so L² − 2L − 3 = 0, which factorises as (L − 3)(L + 1) = 0, giving L = 3 or L = −1. Since the sequence of iterates stays positive throughout, the limit is L = 3. Taking the other, negative root without rejecting it gives −1. Treating the equation L = 2L + 3 as already linear, forgetting to square both sides first, gives −L = 3, so L = −3. A sign error when factorising, writing (L + 3)(L − 1) = 0 instead of (L − 3)(L + 1) = 0, gives L = 1.
2. (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.
3. (b) 0.0309 — Method: P(both defective | at least one defective) = P(both defective) ÷ P(at least one defective). Find each using independence: P(both) = 0.06², P(at least one) = 1 − P(neither) = 1 − 0.94². Working: P(both) = 0.06² = 0.0036. P(neither) = 0.94² = 0.8836, so P(at least one) = 1 − 0.8836 = 0.1164. P(both | at least one) = 0.0036 ÷ 0.1164 = 0.0309 (3 s.f.). Answer: 0.0309. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.0036 gives P(both defective) itself, not the probability once you already know at least one is defective — you still need to divide by P(at least one defective). Giving 0.0600 answers with the single-component defect rate, ignoring the condition altogether. And 0.5000 assumes that 'at least one' makes the outcomes 'exactly one defective' and 'both defective' equally likely, which is not how these probabilities combine.
4. (a) False — 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 12, not 8x − 3. — Expand the bracket by multiplying both terms by 4: 4 × 2x = 8x and 4 × (−3) = −12, so 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 12, which is not 8x − 3 — the student is wrong. Saying 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 3 comes from multiplying only the 2x by 4 and copying the −3 across unchanged. Saying 4(2x − 3) = 2x − 12 comes from multiplying only the −3 by 4 and leaving 2x unmultiplied. Claiming it is true because both expressions are linear ignores that equivalence depends on the actual coefficients, not the type of expression.
5. (b) It is not even an ordinary equation with a solution: expanding the left-hand side gives 3x − 12, and 3x − 12 = 3x − 4 would require −12 = −4, which is never true. — Expanding the left-hand side, 3(x − 4) = 3x − 12. Setting this equal to the right-hand side, 3x − 12 = 3x − 4, gives −12 = −4 once the 3x terms are removed from both sides — a statement that is never true, so no value of x satisfies the equation at all, and it is certainly not an identity. The option about substituting a specific value misunderstands algebraic expansion, which holds for every x, not one chosen value. The option matching the first term wrongly assumes that is enough to prove equivalence. The option about multiplying the 4 by 3 on both sides is nonsensical, since there is only one bracket to expand, on the left-hand side.
6. (b) (0, 6) and (0, −6) — Method: every point on the y-axis has x-coordinate 0, so substitute x = 0 into the equation of the circle and solve for y, remembering that a square root has a negative value as well as a positive one. Working: putting x = 0 into x² + y² = 36 leaves y² = 36, so y = 6 or y = −6, and the two crossings are (0, 6) and (0, −6). Answer: (0, 6) and (0, −6). The distractors: (0, 36) and (0, −36) use 36 itself as the distance from the centre, which reads r² as r; (6, 0) and (−6, 0) are the right distance from the centre but are the crossings of the x-axis, found by setting y = 0 instead of x = 0; (0, 18) and (0, −18) halve 36, treating the right-hand side of the equation as a diameter.
7. (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).
8. (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.
9. (a) x = 2, x = 7; y-intercept cannot be found here — Translating y = f(x) to y = f(x − 3) shifts the graph 3 units to the right, so each root increases by 3: x = −1 becomes x = 2, and x = 4 becomes x = 7. The y-intercept is the value at x = 0, which for this new graph is f(0 − 3) = f(−3) — and f(−3) is not one of the values given, so the new y-intercept cannot be worked out from the information given. Writing 'y-intercept stays at (0, −8)' wrongly assumes a horizontal translation leaves the y-intercept unchanged — it generally does not, since it moves the whole graph sideways, including the point that used to sit on the y-axis. Writing roots at x = −4 and x = 1 comes from translating 3 units to the LEFT instead of to the right — f(x − 3) shifts the graph in the positive x-direction, not the negative direction.
10. (b) 0.458 — x₁ = (0.4² + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.16 ÷ 7 = 0.4514 (unrounded, 0.451428...). x₂ = (x₁² + 3) ÷ 7 = (0.2038 + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.2038 ÷ 7 = 0.458 (3 d.p.). Choosing 0.632 divides only the 3 by 7 instead of dividing the whole sum x₁² + 3 by 7. Choosing 0.451 repeats the calculation for x₁ instead of moving on to x₂. Choosing 0.493 uses x₁ itself instead of x₁² inside the formula.
11. (c) 1/2 — Method: restrict to the students who did NOT bring a packed lunch, then find what fraction of that group are girls. Girls without lunch = 42 − 24 = 18. Boys = 70 − 42 = 28, so boys without lunch = 28 − 10 = 18. Total without lunch = 18 + 18 = 36. Working: P(girl | no lunch) = 18 ÷ 36 = 1/2. Answer: 1/2. Watch out: dividing 18 by 42 (the total number of girls) instead of by 36 finds P(no lunch | girl), the reverse conditional. Dividing by 70 (the whole trip) ignores that you already know the student did not bring a lunch. And using the 'brought a lunch' numbers (24 out of 34) answers the question for the wrong group entirely — you were asked about the students who did NOT bring one.
12. (b) 12n — Distributing the minus sign across the second bracket gives n² + 6n + 9 − n² + 6n − 9, and the n² terms and the +9/−9 cancel, leaving 6n + 6n = 12n. Writing 18 comes from only negating the first term of the second bracket, n², and treating the −6n and +9 as unchanged, which gives n² + 6n + 9 − n² − 6n + 9 = 18. Writing 2n² + 18 comes from adding the two brackets instead of subtracting them, (n² + 6n + 9) + (n² − 6n + 9) = 2n² + 18. Writing 6n comes from correctly negating the bracket but then only counting one of the two 6n terms, missing that they add rather than cancel.
13. (a) 2.154 — Continuing xₙ₊₁ = ∛(3xₙ + 4) from x₁ = 2.154 gives x₂ = 2.187, x₃ = 2.195, settling towards the root near 2.196 — this is the formula that converges. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ³ − 4) ÷ 3 from x₁ = 1.333 gives x₂ = −0.543 and then x₃ = −1.387, moving further from the root each time. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = 4 ÷ (xₙ² − 3) from x₁ = 4 gives x₂ = 0.308 and then x₃ = −1.377, swinging wildly rather than settling. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = xₙ³ − 2xₙ − 4 from x₁ = 0 gives x₂ = −4 and then x₃ = −60, running away from the root entirely.
14. (c) (2n + 1)² + (2n + 3)² = (4n² + 4n + 1) + (4n² + 12n + 9) = 8n² + 16n + 10 = 8(n² + 2n + 1) + 2, and n² + 2n + 1 is an integer, so the sum is always 2 more than a multiple of 8. — Expand each square carefully: (2n + 1)² = 4n² + 4n + 1 and (2n + 3)² = 4n² + 12n + 9, since the cross term is 2 × 2n × 3 = 12n. Adding gives 8n² + 16n + 10, and factorising out 8 from every term that can hold one gives 8(n² + 2n + 1) + 2; since n² + 2n + 1 is always an integer, the sum is always 2 more than a multiple of 8. The attempt reaching 8(n² + 2n) + 10 has the correct expansion but stops the factorisation one step early — it never pulls a further 8 out of the 10 (10 = 8 + 2), so 'always 10 more than a multiple of 8' should be reduced to 'always 2 more than a multiple of 8'. The attempt reaching 2(4n² + 8n + 5) also has the correct expansion, and the factorisation is true, but 'always even' only shows the sum is a multiple of 2 — being even is necessary but nowhere near sufficient to be a multiple of 8, and the argument never finds the extra factor of 4. The fourth attempt makes an expansion slip, using (2n + 3)² = 4n² + 9 instead of 4n² + 12n + 9 — dropping the 12n cross term entirely — so it works from the wrong expression 8n² + 4n + 10 throughout, and no amount of correct working afterwards can recover the right conclusion.
15. (c) x = 0 — Expand (x + 4)² correctly: (x + 4)² = x² + 8x + 16. This equals x² + 16 only when 8x is zero, i.e. when x = 0 — at every other value of x the two expressions differ by 8x. Choosing x = 4 confuses the constant inside the bracket with the value of x that makes the expressions match. Choosing x = −4 makes the same confusion but with the sign flipped. Choosing x = 8 mistakes the coefficient of the middle term, 8x, for the value of x itself.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (c) y = 3x + 2 — Method: divide the change in the outputs by the change in the inputs to find the multiplier, then put one pair of values into the rule to find the number added on. Working: the output rises by 11 − 5 = 6 while the input rises by 3 − 1 = 2, so the multiplier is 6 ÷ 2 = 3; with an input of 1, 3 × 1 = 3 and the output is 5, so 2 is added. Answer: y = 3x + 2, checked against the second pair by 3 × 3 + 2 = 11. The distractors: y = 3x − 2 comes from finding the multiplier 3 and then subtracting the 2 instead of adding it; y = 2x + 3 comes from swapping the multiplier and the number added on; y = x + 4 comes from assuming the input is multiplied by 1 and using 5 − 1 = 4 as the number added on.