🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (d) x = 4 and x = −4 — Substituting y = 3 gives x² + 9 = 25, which simplifies to x² = 16, so x = 4 or x = −4. Choosing 'x = 3 and x = −3' uses the given value y = 3 as if it were the x-coordinate. Choosing 'x = 4' alone finds the positive square root of 16 but forgets the negative root. Choosing 'x = 5 and x = −5' skips subtracting 3² = 9 from 25 and takes the square root of 25 directly.
2. (d) It diverges, growing rapidly without limit. — x₁ = 2³ − 2 = 8 − 2 = 6. x₂ = 6³ − 2 = 216 − 2 = 214. x₃ = 214³ − 2 = 9800344 − 2 = 9800342. The values 6, 214, 9800342, … grow far larger at every step, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Checking whether the sequence converges to a fixed value near 2 fails, since the terms grow enormously instead of levelling off. Checking for a repeating pair of values also fails, since 6, 214 and 9800342 are all different, with no sign of a return to 6. x₀ = 2 is a fixed point only if 2³ − 2 = 2, but 2³ − 2 = 6, not 2, so the sequence does not stay constant.
3. (a) x + 14 — Expand each bracket separately: 3(x + 4) = 3x + 12, and −2(x − 1) = −2x + 2 (multiply −2 by both x and −1). Combine: 3x + 12 − 2x + 2 = x + 14. Writing x + 10 comes from taking −2(x − 1) as −2x − 2, not flipping the sign of the −1 inside the bracket. Writing 5x + 10 comes from treating the second bracket as +2(x − 1) instead of subtracting it, so the x-terms are added rather than subtracted. Writing x + 13 comes from only multiplying the 2 by the x, and carrying the −1 across unmultiplied.
4. (a) 70 — Method: two linked steps. Find the expected number of billing calls first, then take the 35% of those, because the 35% is quoted for billing calls only. Working: 40% of 500 is 200 billing calls. 35% of 200 is 70 calls. Answer: you would expect 70 calls. The distractors: 200 stops after the first step and gives the billing calls, forgetting that only some of them are dealt with quickly; 175 is 35% of 500, applying the quick response rate to every call the centre takes rather than to the billing calls only; 375 comes from adding 40% and 35% to get 75% and taking 75% of 500, which treats two stages of one journey as separate outcomes to be added.
5. (b) (5, 1) — First scale a by 2: 2a = (2×3, 2×(−2)) = (6, −4). Then add b component by component: (6+(−1), −4+5) = (5, 1). (2, 3) is a + b without doubling a first. (4, 6) doubles both a and b instead of only a. (7, −9) subtracts b from 2a instead of adding it.
6. (a) 8 — f(x − 1) means every input to f is reduced by 1 before it is looked up. At x = 2, the input to f becomes 2 − 1 = 1, so f(x − 1) at x = 2 is f(1) = 8. Reading f(2) = 4 directly from the table, without applying the shift, gives 4. Shifting in the wrong direction, using x + 1 = 3 instead of x − 1 = 1, gives f(3) = 1. Confusing f(x − 1) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(2) = 4 and then subtracting 1 — gives 3.
7. (a) y = −2x + 3 — Method: find the step in the outputs for each step of 1 in the input — falling outputs mean a negative multiplier — then read off the output when the input is 0, because that is the number added on. Working: the outputs 5, 3, 1, −1 fall by 2 each time x rises by 1, so x is multiplied by −2; the output at x = 0 is 3, so 3 is added. Answer: y = −2x + 3, checked at x = 2 by −2 × 2 + 3 = −1. The distractors: y = 2x + 3 comes from taking the size of the step, 2, as the multiplier and ignoring the fact that the outputs are falling; y = −2x − 3 comes from using the correct multiplier but writing the number added on as −3 instead of the output 3 listed at x = 0; y = −x + 4 comes from taking the multiplier as −1, its size read from the step of 1 in the inputs instead of the step of 2 in the outputs and its sign from the fact that the outputs fall, and then fitting the number added on to the pair x = −1, y = 5.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (d) 3 — Method: the height of a bar is its frequency density, frequency ÷ class width, so work out both heights and divide one by the other. Working: the class 0 ≤ t < 4 is 4 minutes wide and holds 30 visits, so its frequency density is 30 ÷ 4 = 7.5 per minute; the class 4 ≤ t < 20 is 16 minutes wide and holds 40 visits, so its frequency density is 40 ÷ 16 = 2.5 per minute; dividing the heights, 7.5 ÷ 2.5 = 3. Answer: the first bar is 3 times as tall. The distractors: 0.75 comes from comparing the frequencies, 30 ÷ 40, as though the frequencies were the heights, which is the mistake the unequal widths are there to expose; 4 comes from comparing the class widths, 16 ÷ 4, instead of the heights; 5 comes from subtracting the two frequency densities, 7.5 − 2.5, which answers how much taller rather than how many times taller.
11. (a) (4, −8), a minimum point — The transformation x → x + 1 inside f translates the graph 1 unit to the LEFT, so the x-coordinate becomes 5 − 1 = 4. The minus sign in front of f reflects the graph in the x-axis, so the y-coordinate becomes −8, and a reflection in the x-axis turns every maximum into a minimum, so (4, −8) is a minimum point. Writing '(4, −8), a maximum point' gets the coordinates right but forgets that a reflection in the x-axis swaps maximum and minimum points. Writing '(6, −8), a minimum point' comes from translating 1 unit to the RIGHT instead of the left — f(x + 1) always moves the graph in the negative x-direction. Writing '(4, 8), a minimum point' gets the x-coordinate and the type right, but forgets to actually negate the y-coordinate, even though it does correctly reclassify the point as a minimum.
12. (d) 2 — Method: if f is 3 times e, then each part of f equals 3 times the matching part of e. Working: using the bottom numbers, 6 = 3 × k, so k = 2. Answer: k = 2. A candidate who multiplies instead of dividing, working out 6 × 3, gets 18. A candidate who uses the top numbers' ratio instead, 15 ÷ 5, and gives that ratio as k gets 3. A candidate who adds instead of using the multiple relationship, working out 6 + 3, gets 9.
13. (a) 4.897 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side of the formula to get x₁, then feed each new value back in, keeping the whole calculator display every time and rounding only at the very end. Working: x₁ = √(5 × 2 + 2) = √12 = 3.46410…; x₂ = √(5 × 3.46410… + 2) = √19.32050… = 4.39551…; x₃ = √(5 × 4.39551… + 2) = √23.97755… = 4.89668…, which is 4.897 correct to 3 decimal places. Answer: 4.897. The distractors: 4.396 is x₂, written down by a candidate who counts the starting value x₀ as the first iterate and so stops one use of the formula early; 3.464 is x₁, the value after using the formula only once; 5.146 is x₄, one use of the formula too many — the mirror image of the first slip, made by a candidate who labels the first value worked out as x₀ rather than as x₁ and so runs the count a step long.
14. (c) 0.25 — Method: P(B | A) = P(A and B) ÷ P(A). Working: P(B | A) = 0.15 ÷ 0.6 = 0.25. Answer: 0.25. Watch out: multiplying 0.6 by 0.15 instead of dividing gives 0.09, and subtracting 0.15 from 0.6 gives 0.45 — neither uses the conditional probability formula. Leaving the answer as 0.15 mistakes the probability of A and B happening together for the probability of B once you already know A has happened — those are different quantities.
15. (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.
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. (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.
18. (c) 37.5 — The tangent at (18, 24) is 18x + 24y = 900 (using ax + by = r² with a = 18, b = 24, r² = 900). Setting x = 0 to find the y-intercept: 24y = 900, so y = 37.5. Choosing 900 skips the division by 24 and just repeats the constant. Choosing 50 divides the constant by the x-coefficient 18 instead of the y-coefficient 24. Choosing 1.25 uses the radius 30 instead of r² = 900 as the constant before dividing.