🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (c) Week 16, £37,000 — y = f(x − 6) − 8000 combines a horizontal translation of 6 units RIGHT (subtracting 6 inside the brackets) with a vertical translation of £8000 DOWN (subtracting 8000 outside). Applying both to the maximum (10, 45000): 10 + 6 = 16, so the new maximum is in week 16. And 45000 − 8000 = 37000, so the maximum weekly profit is £37,000.
3. (c) A histogram, with frequency density up the vertical axis — Method: decide which diagram makes area stand for frequency, which is the property the question asks for. Working: on a histogram the vertical axis is frequency density, so the area of a bar is frequency density × class width, and that product is the frequency; this is exactly what is wanted, and it is what allows classes of unequal width to be shown fairly. Answer: a histogram, with frequency density up the vertical axis. The distractors: a bar chart plots frequency as the height, so with unequal widths a wide class would cover far more area than a narrow class holding the same number of batteries, and area would measure nothing; a cumulative frequency diagram plots running totals against upper class boundaries, so a point on it gives how many lie below a value rather than how many lie in a class; a pie chart shows each class as a share of the whole 300 and loses the class widths entirely, so no area on it is tied to a scale of hours.
4. (c) 46 — Method: the cumulative frequency table gives the number of runners below each time; to find the number at or above a time, subtract that cumulative frequency from the total. Working: the cumulative frequency for t < 40 is 74, so 120 runners in total take away the 74 who finished in under 40 minutes: 120 − 74 = 46. Answer: 46 runners took 40 minutes or longer. Watch which boundary and which subtraction you use: reading off t < 50 instead of t < 40 and subtracting, 120 − 110 = 10, answers a different question, '50 minutes or longer'; giving 74 itself as the answer reports how many finished below 40 minutes, the opposite of what was asked; and subtracting the two nearby cumulative frequencies, 110 − 74 = 36, finds how many took between 40 and 50 minutes, not everyone from 40 minutes upward.
5. (a) 842.0 — The radius to (20, 21) has gradient 21/20, so the tangent's gradient is −20/21. The tangent line is y − 21 = −20/21(x − 20), i.e. y = −20/21x + 841/21. Setting y = 0 gives the x-intercept x = 841/20 = 42.05; setting x = 0 gives the y-intercept y = 841/21 ≈ 40.048. The area of triangle OPQ is 1/2 × 42.05 × 40.048 ≈ 842.0. 1684.0 comes from multiplying the two intercepts without the 1/2 that a triangle's area needs — twice the correct area. 580.7 comes from using the circle's radius, 29, as a side of the triangle instead of the x-intercept, 42.05: 1/2 × 29 × 40.048 ≈ 580.7. 2.0 comes from a sign error in the tangent's gradient — using 20/21 instead of −20/21 — which gives a different line, with intercepts x ≈ −2.05 and y ≈ 1.952, and area 1/2 × 2.05 × 1.952 ≈ 2.0.
6. (c) 10x − 15 — Expand the bracket first: 3(2x − 5) = 6x − 15. Then add the 4x: 6x − 15 + 4x = 10x − 15. The option 10x − 5 comes from forgetting to multiply the 5 inside the bracket by 3 (treating it as 6x − 5), then adding 4x. The option 10x + 15 comes from a sign error when expanding, treating 3 × (−5) as +15 instead of −15, then adding 4x. The option 6x − 15 comes from expanding the bracket correctly but forgetting to add the 4x term at all.
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) 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.
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. (d) 5/11 — Method: the pen already taken was black, so update the contents of the box before working out the second probability. Working: the box held 12 pens and one black pen has gone, so 11 pens remain. None of the blue pens has been taken, so all 5 are still there, and the probability is 5/11, which will not cancel. Answer: the probability is 5/11. The distractors: 5/12 uses the box as it was at the start, which is only correct if the first pen is put back; 4/11 takes one off the blue count as well as the total, as though the pen removed had been blue; 6/11 gives the probability that the second pen is black, carrying on with the colour of the first pen instead of the colour asked for.
11. (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.
12. (c) 7/19 — Method: 'at least two black' covers two cases — all three black, and exactly two black. Work out the probability of each along a tree, add them, then use P(all three black | at least two black) = P(all three black) ÷ P(at least two black). Working: P(all three black) = 9/13 × 8/12 × 7/11 = 504/1716 = 42/143. For exactly two black, one order is black, black, white = 9/13 × 8/12 × 4/11 = 288/1716; the white sock could be drawn first, second or third, so there are 3 such orders, giving 3 × 288/1716 = 864/1716 = 72/143. P(at least two black) = 42/143 + 72/143 = 114/143. P(all three black | at least two black) = (42/143) ÷ (114/143) = 42/114 = 7/19. Answer: 7/19. Watch out: stopping at 42/143 gives the unconditioned probability that all three are black — it ignores that you already know at least two of them are. Dividing by the 'exactly two black' probability on its own gives 7/12, and forgets that the all-black outcomes are themselves part of the 'at least two black' group, so they must be inside the denominator, not left out of it. And 7/11 answers a different, easier question — the probability the THIRD sock is black given the FIRST TWO specifically are black — not 'at least two of the three, in any order, are black'.
13. (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.
14. (c) 42 — Method: find the target cumulative frequency, 90% of the total, locate the class it falls in from the plotted points, then interpolate: lower boundary, plus the extra distance needed into the class divided by the class's frequency, times its width. Working: 90% of 320 is 0.9 × 320 = 288. The plotted points show a cumulative frequency of 280 at d = 40 and 320 at d = 50, so the class 40 ≤ d < 50 has frequency 320 − 280 = 40 and width 50 − 40 = 10, and 288 falls inside it. The extra distance needed into the class is 288 − 280 = 8, and 8 ÷ 40 × 10 = 2, so the diameter is 40 + 2 = 42. Answer: the estimated diameter is 42 mm. Watch which point and which class the interpolation actually uses: reading off d = 40, the plotted point just below the target, instead of interpolating the extra 8 ball bearings into the next 10 mm, stops one step short of the true answer; finding the diameter below which only 10% lie instead of 90% gives a target of 0.1 × 320 = 32, which falls in the class 10 ≤ d < 20 — the extra distance into that class is 32 − 30 = 2, and 2 ÷ 60 × 10 = 0.3, so this route gives 10 + 0.3 = 10.3, the bottom decile rather than the top 90%; and interpolating within the class 30 ≤ d < 40 instead of 40 ≤ d < 50, as though 288 had not yet reached a cumulative frequency of 280, treats the extra distance as 288 − 190 = 98, and 98 ÷ 90 × 10 = 10.9, giving 30 + 10.9 = 40.9, one class too early.
15. (a) −8 — −f(x) means take the output value from the table and change its sign, without changing which x-value is looked up. From the table, f(1) = 8, so −f(1) = −8. Reading f(1) = 8 from the table but forgetting to apply the negative sign gives 8. Misreading the row and using f(0) = 5 instead of f(1) = 8, then negating it, gives −5. Confusing −f(x) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(1) = 8 and subtracting 1 instead of negating — gives 7.
16. (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.
17. (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.
18. (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.