🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (c) 17.7 cm — Method: the iteration converges on x, the depth of the box, which is also the side of each square cut away; a square is removed from both ends of the 20 cm side, so the longer side of the base is 20 − 2x. Run the formula three times, then carry out that subtraction. Working: x₁ = (16 × 1² − 1³ + 50) ÷ 60 = 65 ÷ 60 = 1.08333…; x₂ = 67.50636… ÷ 60 = 1.12510…; x₃ = 68.82959… ÷ 60 = 1.14715…. The longer side of the base is 20 − 2 × 1.14715… = 17.70568…, which is 17.7 cm correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 17.7 cm. The distractors: 1.1 cm is x₃ itself rounded, the depth of the box, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 18.9 cm is 20 − 1.14715…, taking away one square instead of two and forgetting that a corner is cut from each end of that side; 9.7 cm is 12 − 2 × 1.14715…, the shorter side of the base, which measures the wrong edge of the sheet.
3. (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.
4. (b) 2/11 — Method: restrict the 36 equally likely outcomes to those where at least one die shows a 5, then find what fraction of THOSE give a total of 8. Working: outcomes with at least one 5: (5, 1), (5, 2), (5, 3), (5, 4), (5, 5), (5, 6), (1, 5), (2, 5), (3, 5), (4, 5), (6, 5) — 11 outcomes. Among these, the total is 8 for (5, 3) and (3, 5) — 2 outcomes. P(total 8 | at least one 5) = 2/11. Answer: 2/11. Watch out: 5/36 is P(total 8) over the full 36 outcomes — it ignores that you already know one die shows a 5. Treating the condition as 'the first die shows a 5' instead of 'at least one die shows a 5' restricts you to only 6 outcomes and misses the (3, 5) case, giving 1/6. And counting only (5, 3) but not its reverse (3, 5) inside the correct 11-outcome list gives 1/11 instead of 2/11.
5. (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.
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. (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.
8. (d) 2/3 — Method: since A is the midpoint of OE, OE = 2a, so E = 2a. Since FB is twice AF, F is 1/3 of the way along AB from A, so F = a + 1/3(b − a) = (2/3)a + (1/3)b. G is the midpoint of OB, so G = (1/2)b. Working: EF = F − E = (2/3)a + (1/3)b − 2a = −(4/3)a + (1/3)b, and EG = G − E = −2a + (1/2)b. Comparing term by term, 2/3 × (−2a + (1/2)b) = −(4/3)a + (1/3)b, which matches EF exactly — the same scalar works on both the a-term and the b-term, so the two vectors are parallel, and since they share the point E the three points are collinear. Answer: k = 2/3, so E, F and G lie on a straight line. Giving 1/3 instead is the scalar linking F to G (FG = (1/3)EG), not E to F; giving 3/2 is the reciprocal — it is EG that equals 3/2 × EF, not the other way round, since EF = k × EG was what was asked for; and giving 4/3 is EF's a-coefficient read off raw, without ever dividing it by EG's a-coefficient to form the comparison. Always match the direction of the scalar to the vectors exactly as the question states them.
9. (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.
10. (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).
11. (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.
12. (d) 12/17 — Method: the person picked is known to have passed, so the sample space is everyone who passed; divide the course takers who passed by that total. Working: 120 course takers and 50 others passed, so 170 people passed. The course takers who passed give 120/170, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 10 gives 12/17. Answer: the probability is 12/17. The distractors: 4/5 is 120/150, the probability that someone passed given that they took the course, which reverses the condition and the event; 12/25 is 120/250, dividing by everyone who sat the test rather than by the 170 who passed; 17/25 is 170/250, the probability that a person picked from everyone sitting the test passed, which answers a different question altogether.
13. (a) 1.861 — x₁ = ∛(10 − 2²) = ∛6 = 1.817120593. x₂ = ∛(10 − 1.817120593²) = ∛6.698072751 = 1.885022855. x₃ = ∛(10 − 1.885022855²) = ∛6.446688837 = 1.861139399, which rounds to 1.861. Reporting x₂ instead of x₃ gives 1.885022855, which rounds to 1.885. Stopping after the first iteration and reporting x₁ instead of x₃ gives 1.817120593, which rounds to 1.817. A sign error inside the cube root, using xₙ₊₁ = ∛(10 + xₙ²) instead of ∛(10 − xₙ²), gives x₁ = ∛14 = 2.410142264, x₂ = ∛(10 + 2.410142264²) = 2.509763724, and x₃ = ∛(10 + 2.509763724²) = 2.535437381, which rounds to 2.535.
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. (b) 8/35 — Method: the pupil picked is known to play at least one of the two sports, so first count how many pupils that is, then divide the number who play both by it. Working: 25 play football and 18 play tennis, but the 8 who play both have been counted in each figure, so the number who play at least one sport is 25 + 18 minus 8, which is 35. The pupils who play both give 8/35, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 8/35. The distractors: 2/15 is 8/60, dividing by the whole year group instead of by the 35 pupils who play at least one sport; 8/43 uses 25 + 18 as the denominator, forgetting that the 8 pupils who play both have been counted twice; 8/25 conditions on the footballers alone, answering the probability that a footballer also plays tennis rather than using every pupil who plays a sport.
16. (b) 2x + 3 — fg(x) means f(g(x)): apply g first, then apply f to the result. g(x) = 2x, so f(g(x)) = f(2x) = 2x + 3. Writing 2x + 6 comes from working out gf(x) instead — g(f(x)) = g(x + 3) = 2(x + 3) = 2x + 6 — which applies the functions in the wrong order. Writing 3x + 3 comes from adding f(x) and g(x) together, (x + 3) + 2x = 3x + 3, instead of composing them. Writing 2x² + 6x comes from multiplying f(x) and g(x) together, (x + 3)(2x) = 2x² + 6x, instead of substituting one into the other.
17. (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.
18. (c) Statement (ii) — Statement (ii) opens with 'Since n(n + 1) is even', treating the very fact the proof is meant to establish as if it were already known — that is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion to help derive itself. Statement (i) only names the two consecutive integers as n and n + 1; it makes no claim about whether their product is even, so it introduces nothing circular. Statement (iii) states the conclusion, and would be a valid final step if statement (ii) had reached 'one of n and n + 1 is even' by a genuine argument, such as considering the cases where n is even or odd separately. Saying the proof assumes nothing circular is wrong, because statement (ii)'s opening clause is exactly that assumption.