🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (a) 2x − 1 — Swap x and y: x = (y + 1)/2. Multiply both sides by 2: 2x = y + 1. Subtract 1 from both sides: y = 2x − 1, so f⁻¹(x) = 2x − 1. Writing 2x + 1 comes from not flipping the sign on the 1 when it is moved across the equals sign. Writing (x − 1)/2 comes from reversing the sign of the 1 but leaving the ÷2 from the original rule in place, instead of turning it into ×2. Writing x/2 − 1 comes from dividing only the x by 2 and treating the 1 as already outside the fraction.
2. (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.
3. (a) 16 — A and B share the same y-coordinate, so the distance between them is the horizontal difference between their x-coordinates: 8 − (−8) = 16, giving a chord of length 16. Choosing 8 gives only the x-coordinate of one point, not the full distance between the two points. Choosing 34 is the diameter of the circle (2 × 17), not the length of this particular chord. Choosing 17 is the radius — the distance from the centre to A or to B, not from A to B.
4. (b) 12/19 — Method: turn the percentages into expected frequencies out of 1000, total the faulty pens, then divide supplier Y's faulty pens by that total, because the pen picked is known to be faulty. Working: supplier X provided 700 pens and 2% of them are faulty, which is 14 pens. Supplier Y provided 300 pens and 8% of them are faulty, which is 24 pens. Altogether 38 pens are faulty, so the probability is 24/38, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 2 gives 12/19. Answer: the probability is 12/19. The distractors: 3/10 is supplier Y's share of the stock, the answer before the faulty information is used at all; 3/125 is 24/1000, the probability that a pen is from supplier Y and faulty, which stops at the joint probability and never divides by the probability of a fault; 4/5 is 8 divided by 2 + 8, comparing the two fault rates as though the suppliers provided equal numbers of pens, so the 70 to 30 split is thrown away.
5. (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.
6. (d) P lies outside the circle — The squared distance from the origin to P is 8² + 9² = 64 + 81 = 145, which is greater than 100, so P lies outside the circle. Choosing 'P lies inside the circle' comes from adding the coordinates directly (8 + 9 = 17) instead of squaring and adding them, and comparing 17 with 100. Choosing 'P lies on the circle' comes from squaring 9 incorrectly as 36 (as if it were 6²) instead of 81, giving 64 + 36 = 100, equal to the right-hand side. Choosing 'Cannot be determined' wrongly assumes the equation of the line itself is needed, when the radius and the distance from the origin to P are already enough.
7. (a) 4/9 — Method: two steps. Find how many cars failed altogether, because the car picked is known to be one of them, then divide the diesel failures by that total. Working: 30 petrol cars and 24 diesel cars failed, so 54 cars failed. The diesel failures give 24/54, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 6 gives 4/9. Answer: the probability is 4/9. The distractors: 3/10 is 24/80, the probability that a car fails given that it is a diesel car, which is the condition and the event swapped; 3/25 is 24/200, dividing by every car serviced that week rather than by the 54 that failed; 2/5 is 80/200, the probability that a car chosen from the whole week is a diesel car, which ignores the fact that the car picked failed.
8. (d) 44 — Method: a cumulative frequency counts everything below a value, so the frequency of a class is the running total at the top of the class minus the running total at the bottom of it. Working: the running total below 20 kg is 96 and the running total below 10 kg is 52, so the number of boxes in the class 10 ≤ m < 20 is 96 − 52 = 44. Answer: 44 boxes. The distractors: 96 comes from quoting the running total at 20 kg itself, which counts every box below 20 kg rather than only those in this class; 34 comes from subtracting the wrong pair, 52 − 18, which gives the class 5 ≤ m < 10 instead; 54 comes from subtracting from the grand total, 150 − 96, which gives the boxes of 20 kg or more.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (d) x₂ closer: f(x₂) = 0.0225, nearer to 0 — f(2.6) = 2.6² − 7 = 6.76 − 7 = −0.24, and f(2.65) = 2.65² − 7 = 7.0225 − 7 = 0.0225. The closer a value of x is to the root, the closer f(x) is to zero — regardless of sign. Since |0.0225| = 0.0225 is much smaller than |−0.24| = 0.24, x₂ = 2.65 is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: −0.24 is the smaller value' comes from comparing the SIGNED values of f(x) rather than their distances from zero — −0.24 is indeed less than 0.0225 as a number, but that does not mean x₁ is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: f(x₁) negative ⇒ nearer root' invents a rule that a negative f(x) means x is closer to the root; the sign of f(x) only tells you which side of the root x is on, not how close it is. 'x₂ is the exact root, since f(x₂) ≈ 0' misreads f(x₂) = 0.0225 as zero; the true root is √7 ≈ 2.6458, so f(2.65) is close to zero but not equal to it, and x₂ is an approximation, not the exact root.
12. (a) (0, 7) and (0, −7) — A tangent is horizontal where the radius to that point is vertical, i.e. where the point lies on the y-axis. On x² + y² = 49, setting x = 0 gives y² = 49, so y = 7 or y = −7. The points are (0, 7) and (0, −7). (7, 0) and (−7, 0) comes from swapping the condition — these are the points where the tangent is VERTICAL, not horizontal (the radius there is horizontal). (0, 7) only comes from finding one valid point but forgetting that y² = 49 also gives the negative root, y = −7. (7, 0) only combines both mistakes: the wrong axis, and only one of the two roots.
13. (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).
14. (a) 1/3 — Method: since OABC is a parallelogram, B = OA + OC = a + c. M = (1/2)c, since M is the midpoint of OC. Since AN is twice NC, N is 2/3 of the way along AC from A, so N = a + 2/3(c − a) = (1/3)a + (2/3)c. Working: MN = N − M = (1/3)a + (1/6)c, and MB = B − M = a + (1/2)c. Comparing term by term, 1/3 × (a + (1/2)c) = (1/3)a + (1/6)c, which matches MN exactly. Answer: k = 1/3, so M, N and B lie on a straight line. Giving 2/3 instead is the scalar linking N to B (NB = (2/3)MB), not M to N; giving 1/6 is just MN's c-coefficient read off on its own, without comparing it to MB's c-coefficient at all; and giving 3 is the scalar the wrong way up — it is MB that equals 3 × MN, not the other way round, since MN = k × MB was what was asked for. Always match the direction of the scalar to the vectors exactly as the question states them.
15. (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.
16. (a) They always charge the same, since 3(2n + 4) = 6n + 12. — Expand Advert A's formula by multiplying both terms inside the bracket by 3: 3 × 2n = 6n, and 3 × 4 = 12, giving 3(2n + 4) = 6n + 12, which is identical to Advert B's formula — so the two adverts always charge the same amount, whatever n is. Getting 6n + 4 comes from multiplying the 2n by 3 but leaving the 4 unmultiplied. Getting 2n + 7 comes from adding 3 to the bracket instead of multiplying by it. Saying it depends on n avoids expanding the bracket at all — once expanded, both formulas are identical for every value of n, so the cost can be compared directly.
17. (d) (1/2)a + (1/2)c — Method: X is the midpoint of AC, so OX = OA + (1/2)AC, with AC = c − a. Working: OX = a + 1/2(c − a) = a − (1/2)a + (1/2)c = (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Answer: OX = (1/2)a + (1/2)c. Since OB = a + c, this is exactly half of OB, so OX = (1/2)OB, meaning X lies on OB at its midpoint too — the two diagonals bisect each other. Forgetting to halve AC at all gives a + c, which is OB itself, not its midpoint; halving only the c-term gives (1/2)a + c; and a sign error on the c-term gives (1/2)a − (1/2)c. Halve the whole of AC, both terms together, and add it to OA rather than to a alone.
18. (c) −0.5 — fg(x) = f(g(x)) = f(x²) = x² + 2. gf(x) = g(f(x)) = g(x + 2) = (x + 2)² = x² + 4x + 4. Setting fg(x) = gf(x): x² + 2 = x² + 4x + 4. Subtract x² from both sides: 2 = 4x + 4. Subtract 4 from both sides: −2 = 4x, so x = −0.5. Writing 1.5 comes from adding the 4 instead of subtracting it: 4x = 2 + 4 = 6, giving x = 1.5. Writing 'no solution' comes from expanding (x + 2)² as x² + 4 using (a + b)² = a² + b², losing the middle term — the equation then reads x² + 2 = x² + 4, which has no solution, but the expansion itself is wrong. Writing 0 comes from treating gf(x) as g(x) + f(x) instead of g(f(x)): x² + (x + 2) = x² + 2 gives x = 0, but that adds the two functions rather than composing them.