🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (b) 38% — Method: the two swimming percentages are quoted inside different age groups, so weight each one by the size of its group and add the two results. Working: the under 18s are 45% of the members and 60% of them swim, giving 0.45 × 60 = 27% of all the members. The members aged 18 or over are 55% of the members and 20% of them swim, giving 0.55 × 20 = 11% of all the members. Adding these gives 38%. Answer: 38% of the members swim each week. The distractors: 80% comes from adding 60% and 20% straight off, treating two rates quoted inside different groups as though they could be added; 40% is the mean of 60% and 20%, which would be right only if the two age groups were the same size, and they are not; 42% comes from pairing each swimming rate with the wrong age group, working out 0.45 × 20 added to 0.55 × 60.
2. (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.
3. (b) 3.38 — r₁ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8)) = √11.9366 = 3.4550. r₂ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.4550)) = √11.2947 = 3.3608. r₃ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.3608)) = √11.4232 = 3.3798, which rounds to 3.38. Choosing 3.36 stops at r₂, one iteration too early. Choosing 4.82 leaves out the '+ 5' inside the bracket, dividing by π × rₙ instead of π × (rₙ + 5). Choosing 3.45 comes from using π ≈ 3 instead of the calculator's π key throughout.
4. (b) It is not even an ordinary equation with a solution: expanding the left-hand side gives 3x − 12, and 3x − 12 = 3x − 4 would require −12 = −4, which is never true. — Expanding the left-hand side, 3(x − 4) = 3x − 12. Setting this equal to the right-hand side, 3x − 12 = 3x − 4, gives −12 = −4 once the 3x terms are removed from both sides — a statement that is never true, so no value of x satisfies the equation at all, and it is certainly not an identity. The option about substituting a specific value misunderstands algebraic expansion, which holds for every x, not one chosen value. The option matching the first term wrongly assumes that is enough to prove equivalence. The option about multiplying the 4 by 3 on both sides is nonsensical, since there is only one bracket to expand, on the left-hand side.
5. (b) 55 — Method: count the classes that lie wholly above 8 minutes, then use linear interpolation for the class that 8 cuts through, assuming the delays in that class are spread evenly. Working: the class 10 ≤ d < 20 lies wholly above 8 and holds 25 buses; the value 8 lies in the class 5 ≤ d < 10, which is 5 minutes wide and holds 75 buses, and the part above 8 runs from 8 to 10, a width of 2, so the estimated share is (2 ÷ 5) × 75 = 30 buses; the estimate is 30 + 25 = 55. Answer: about 55 refunds. The distractors: 100 comes from adding the whole of the class 5 ≤ d < 10, 75 + 25, and so refunding buses only 5 minutes late; 25 comes from using only the class 10 ≤ d < 20 and ignoring the part class that 8 minutes cuts through; 70 comes from taking the part of the class from 5 up to 8 instead of from 8 up to 10, giving (3 ÷ 5) × 75 = 45 and then 45 + 25.
6. (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.
7. (c) 3/20 — Method: the second fraction is quoted for the perennials only, so it is a conditional probability and the two fractions multiply. Working: the probability that a plant is a perennial is 3/5, and given that it is a perennial the probability that it is in flower is 1/4. Multiplying gives 3 × 1 over 5 × 4, which is 3/20. Answer: the probability is 3/20. The distractors: 17/20 comes from adding the fractions, 12/20 plus 5/20, instead of multiplying, which would be right only for two outcomes that cannot both happen; 4/9 comes from adding the numerators and the denominators separately, the classic 3 + 1 over 5 + 4; 1/4 quotes the flowering fraction on its own, as though every plant in the garden centre were a perennial, so the 3/5 is never used.
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) (3, 7) — y = f(x) + 5 is a vertical translation of y = f(x) by 5 units up — the translation vector is (0, 5) — so only the y-coordinate of any point changes. Turning point (3, 2) → (3, 2 + 5) = (3, 7). Adding the 5 to the x-coordinate, or treating it as a horizontal shift like y = f(x + 5), moves the wrong coordinate — check first whether the number sits inside or outside the brackets.
10. (a) 7/16 — Method: the adult picked is known to have a driving licence, so the sample space is everyone with a licence; divide the number of men with a licence by that total. Working: 45 women and 35 men have a licence, so 80 adults have one. The men with a licence give 35/80, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 5 gives 7/16. Answer: the probability is 7/16. The distractors: 7/10 is 35/50, the probability that an adult has a licence given that he is a man, which is the condition and the event the wrong way round; 7/24 is 35/120, dividing by all 120 adults surveyed instead of by the 80 who have a licence; 5/12 is 50/120, the probability that an adult picked from the whole survey is a man, which uses none of the licence information the question supplies.
11. (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.
12. (c) Translate +1 in y; new range 0 ≤ y ≤ 2 — Adding 1 to sin x translates the graph 1 unit in the positive y-direction, and every y-value on the range increases by 1: −1 + 1 = 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, giving a new range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 2. A translation in the x-direction would not add anything to the y-values, so 'Translate +1 in x; range unchanged' correctly leaves the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 for that (wrong) transformation, but the transformation itself is not what y = sin x + 1 shows. 'Translate +1 in y; new range −2 ≤ y ≤ 0' correctly spots the translation but subtracts 1 from each bound instead of adding it. 'Reflect in the x-axis' mistakes the transformation for a reflection rather than a translation; reflecting sin x in the x-axis does leave the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 unchanged in size, but that is not the transformation y = sin x + 1 actually applies.
13. (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.
14. (a) 7 — Multiply the input by 2: 6 × 2 = 12. Then subtract 5: 12 − 5 = 7. A candidate who does the operations in the wrong order, subtracting 5 first and then multiplying by 2, gets (6 − 5) × 2 = 2. A candidate who only carries out the multiplication and forgets to subtract gets 12. A candidate who adds 5 instead of subtracting gets 6 × 2 + 5 = 17.
15. (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.
16. (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).
17. (c) The sequence diverges, moving away from x = 3 — Starting from x₀ = 2.9: x₁ = 2.9² − 6 = 2.41, x₂ = 2.41² − 6 = −0.19, x₃ = (−0.19)² − 6 = −5.96, x₄ = (−5.96)² − 6 = 29.56 — the values swing away from 3 and grow rapidly, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Choosing 'settles towards x = 3' assumes that starting close to a root is enough for a rearrangement to converge to it, which is not always true — this rearrangement changes values too steeply near x = 3 to stay there. Choosing 'settles towards x = −2' assumes a diverging sequence must eventually land on the other root; instead it runs away to increasingly large values. Choosing 'stays constant at 2.9' ignores that applying the formula changes the value at every step.
18. (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.