🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (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.
2. (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.
3. (c) (10.5, −2) — Method: the vector from the first tile to the third tile is the pattern's vector doubled, since two translations happen between them. Working: doubling (4.5, −2.5) gives (9, −5); adding this to the starting corner (1.5, 3) gives x-coordinate 1.5 + 9 = 10.5 and y-coordinate 3 − 5 = −2. Answer: (10.5, −2). A candidate who only applies the vector once, translating to the second tile instead of the third, gets (6, 0.5). A candidate who adds 2.5 instead of subtracting it in the y-coordinate gets (10.5, 8). A candidate who doubles the x-part of the vector correctly but forgets to change the y-coordinate at all gets (10.5, 3).
4. (a) 12.5 — Method: the tangent at A is perpendicular to the radius OA, so find the gradient of OA, take its negative reciprocal, write the equation of the tangent and find where it meets the y-axis; the length of OB is then the distance of that crossing from the origin. Working: OA runs from (0, 0) to (−6, 8), so its gradient is 8 ÷ (−6), which cancels to −4/3; the negative reciprocal of −4/3 is 3/4. Substituting into y − 8 = 3/4(x + 6) gives y = 0.75x + 4.5 + 8, so y = 0.75x + 12.5 and B is (0, 12.5). The length OB is therefore 12.5. Answer: 12.5. The distractors: 10 is the radius of the circle, quoted on the assumption that the tangent always meets an axis one radius from the centre, which is only true when the radius itself lies along that axis; 8 is the y-coordinate of A, quoted by treating the tangent as horizontal so that it keeps the height of A; 3.5 comes from turning the gradient of OA upside down without changing its sign, which gives y = −0.75x + 3.5.
5. (d) 4, 3, 2, 6 — Method: frequency density = frequency ÷ class width for each class in turn; do not assume the classes are all the same width. Working: the four classes have widths 10 − 0 = 10, 30 − 10 = 20, 45 − 30 = 15 and 50 − 45 = 5. Dividing each frequency by its own width gives 40 ÷ 10 = 4, 60 ÷ 20 = 3, 30 ÷ 15 = 2 and 30 ÷ 5 = 6. Answer: the frequency densities, in order, are 4, 3, 2 and 6. Watch the width of each class separately: treating the last class as if it were also 10 units wide, like the first, gives 30 ÷ 10 = 3 instead of 30 ÷ 5 = 6 — the classes here are deliberately unequal, so no width can be borrowed from another class; dividing the width by the frequency instead of the frequency by the width for the third class gives 15 ÷ 30 = 0.5 in place of 2, the formula the wrong way round; and reading the frequency column straight off the table, 40, 60, 30, 30, skips the division by width altogether and reports how many fish are in each class rather than how densely packed each bar is.
6. (c) 0.04 — Method: 'made by machine B and faulty' is the second branch of a tree followed after the first, so multiply the probability of machine B by the probability of a fault given machine B. Working: machine B makes 0.4 of the bolts, and 0.1 of those bolts are faulty, so the probability is 0.4 × 0.1 = 0.04. Answer: the probability is 0.04. The distractors: 0.5 comes from adding 0.4 and 0.1 instead of multiplying, treating two stages of one journey as two separate outcomes; 0.1 gives the fault rate for machine B on its own, as though every bolt in the factory came from machine B, so the 40% share is never used; 0.07 is 0.6 × 0.05 added to 0.4 × 0.1, the probability that a bolt is faulty whichever machine made it, which answers a question about all the production rather than about machine B.
7. (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.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (c) (1/2)c − a — Method: in parallelogram OABC, AB is equal and parallel to OC, so AB = c; M is the midpoint of AB, so AM = (1/2)c and OM = OA + AM = a + (1/2)c. MC runs from M to C, so MC = OC − OM. Working: MC = c − (a + (1/2)c) = (1/2)c − a. Answer: MC = (1/2)c − a. Subtracting in the wrong order gives a − (1/2)c, the same vector pointing the opposite way, from C to M rather than M to C; forgetting to halve the c-term gives c − a, which is AC, not MC; and adding instead of subtracting gives (1/2)c + a, which is OM itself. Always subtract the vector for the START of the journey, OM, from the vector for its END point, OC — and keep the fraction from the halving step.
11. (b) 60 — Method: independence means the proportion of part timers among the cyclists is the same as the proportion among all the employees, so find that proportion and apply it to the cyclists. Working: 150 of the 400 employees work part time, which is a proportion of 0.375. Applying it to the 160 cyclists gives 0.375 × 160 = 60 employees. Answer: you would expect 60 employees. The distractors: 310 adds 150 and 160, treating the group who do both as everyone who does one thing or the other; 10 subtracts 150 from 160, reading 'both' as the difference between the two counts; 75 halves the 150 part timers, assuming that independence means they split evenly between cyclists and non cyclists, which would need exactly half the workforce to cycle.
12. (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.
13. (b) 4.39 — x₁ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4²) = ∛(150 − 48) = ∛102 = 4.672 (unrounded). x₂ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4.672²) = ∛(150 − 65.49) = ∛84.51 = 4.39 (2 d.p.). Choosing 4.67 stops after only one iteration, giving x₁ instead of x₂. Choosing 84.51 finds the value inside the cube root for x₂ but never takes the cube root. Choosing 6.32 comes from adding 3xₙ² instead of subtracting it inside the root, which does not match the given formula.
14. (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.
15. (a) 4(x + 3) = 20 and 4x + 3 = 11 when x = 2, so the two expressions are not equivalent, because the bracket means the 3 must be added before multiplying by 4. — Substituting x = 2: 4(x + 3) = 4 × 5 = 20, and 4x + 3 = 8 + 3 = 11. The two values are different, and expanding 4(x + 3) algebraically gives 4x + 12, which can never equal 4x + 3 (that would require 12 = 3) — so the two expressions are never equivalent, for any value of x. The option claiming they become equal for a larger x is wrong: 4x + 12 = 4x + 3 has no solution at all. The option claiming they are equivalent because they share the terms 4x and 3 ignores that the bracket changes the constant term. The option that calculates 4(x + 3) as 11 ignores the bracket completely, applying the 4 only to the x term.
16. (d) x² − 7x − 3 = 0 — Method: an iteration settles where the next value equals the one before it, so both can be written as the same letter x; replace every xₙ by x, square both sides to clear the square root, and collect all the terms on one side. Working: x = √(7x + 3) gives x² = 7x + 3 on squaring both sides; subtracting 7x and 3 from both sides gives x² − 7x − 3 = 0. Answer: x² − 7x − 3 = 0. The distractors: x² + 7x − 3 = 0 moves the 7x across the equals sign without changing its sign; x² − 7x + 3 = 0 makes that same slip on the constant instead, leaving the 3 positive as it crosses; x² − 7x − 9 = 0 squares the expression term by term, squaring the 3 to give 9 as though squaring √(7x + 3) gave 7x + 9, which is the (a + b)² = a² + b² mistake dressed as a square root.
17. (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.
18. (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.