🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (c) a + (1/2)c — Method: OABC is a parallelogram, so OB = OA + AB, and since AB is equal and parallel to OC, AB = c; this gives OB = a + c. M is the midpoint of AB, so AM = (1/2)AB = (1/2)c. Working: OM = OA + AM = a + (1/2)c. Answer: OM = a + (1/2)c. Adding the whole of AB instead of half of it gives a + c, which is OB, not OM; halving the whole diagonal OB instead of just AB gives (1/2)a + (1/2)c, the midpoint of OB rather than of AB; and flipping the sign on the c-term gives a − (1/2)c, which points back the wrong way along AB. Halve only the side you are told to halve, and check the sign before you commit to an answer.
2. (d) g is one-to-one: f(3) = f(−3), removed by x ≥ 0 — A function has an inverse only if it is one-to-one: every output must come from exactly one input. f(3) = 9 and f(−3) = 9, so two different inputs give the same output, and there is no way to send 9 back to a single input — f is not one-to-one over all real x. Restricting the domain to x ≥ 0 removes one of the two inputs behind every such pair, so g is one-to-one and does have an inverse. 'g's outputs are positive; f's could be negative' is wrong because f(x) = x² also only gives outputs of 0 or more — the outputs of f and g are identical sets; it is the INPUTS that differ, not the outputs. 'Restricting any domain always creates an inverse' is wrong because a restriction only helps if it actually removes the repeated outputs: restricting f(x) = x² to x ≥ −3 still leaves f(1) = f(−1) = 1, so that restricted function is still not one-to-one and still has no inverse. 'Squares can never be reversed, under any conditions' is wrong because √9 = 3 does reverse 3² = 9 once you know the input was non-negative — a square root just cannot tell you WHICH of two inputs you started from unless the domain has already ruled one of them out.
3. (c) 2.26 — Method: apply the formula repeatedly, keeping the whole display each time, and stop when two values in a row round to the same 2 decimal places; that shared rounded value is the solution to that accuracy. Working: x₁ = ∛(2 × 2 + 7) = ∛11 = 2.22398…; x₂ = ∛(2 × 2.22398… + 7) = ∛11.44796… = 2.25377…; x₃ = ∛11.50754… = 2.25767…; x₄ = ∛11.51534… = 2.25818…. Now x₃ and x₄ both round to 2.26, so the sequence has settled. Answer: 2.26. The distractors: 2.22 is x₁ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops after one use of the formula; 2.25 is x₂ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops as soon as two values look close instead of waiting until two consecutive values round to the same figure; 1.91 is ∛7, which comes from ignoring the 2x term and solving x³ = 7 instead.
4. (a) It has a solution between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7 — f(2.6) is negative and f(2.7) is positive, so the graph of f crosses the x-axis between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7, meaning the equation has a solution there. Choosing 'x = 2.6 is a solution' reads an end of the interval as the root itself, but f(2.6) = −1.424, which is not zero — the change of sign locates a root between the two values, it does not land on either of them. Choosing 'between x = −2.6 and x = −2.7' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.6 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no root in this interval' misapplies the rule, which needs a CHANGE of sign — and a change of sign is exactly what these two values show.
5. (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.
6. (d) (2/5)a + (3/5)b — Method: OP = OA + AP, and since AP : PB = 3 : 2 splits AB into 5 equal parts, AP is 3/5 of the whole of AB, with AB = b − a. Working: OP = a + 3/5(b − a) = a − (3/5)a + (3/5)b = (2/5)a + (3/5)b. Answer: OP = (2/5)a + (3/5)b. Using the ratio the wrong way round, as though it read AP : PB = 2 : 3, gives (3/5)a + (2/5)b; adding (3/5)b onto the whole of a without subtracting a inside the bracket first gives a + (3/5)b; and treating the ratio as 1 : 1 gives the midpoint, (1/2)a + (1/2)b. Convert the ratio to a fraction of AB measured from A, matching the ORDER the ratio is stated in, and subtract before you scale.
7. (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'.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. (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.
12. (a) −1 — Reflecting y = sin x in the x-axis gives y = −sin x, so g(x) = −sin x. Since sin 90° = 1, g(90) = −1. Reading sin 90° = 1 and forgetting to apply the reflection gives 1. Misreading the angle as 0° instead of 90° gives sin 0° = 0, so 0. Confusing sin 90° with sin 30° = 0.5, then reflecting it, gives −0.5.
13. (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.
14. (d) x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, 12) — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis, to get y = −f(x), negates every y-value but leaves every x-value fixed. The x-intercepts happen where y = 0, and −0 = 0, so they are unaffected: y = −f(x) still crosses the x-axis at x = −2 and x = 6. The y-intercept is the value at x = 0: f(0) = −12, so −f(0) = 12, giving the point (0, 12) — the sign flips because the y-intercept is a nonzero y-value, unlike the roots. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from confusing −f(x) with f(−x) — reflecting in the y-axis instead of the x-axis, which negates the x-values of the intercepts (turning −2 into 2 and 6 into −6) but leaves f(0) unchanged, since f(−0) = f(0) = −12. Writing 'x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from forgetting that −f(x) is a reflection at all, and assumes both intercepts stay exactly as they were. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, 12)' correctly negates the y-intercept but wrongly negates the x-intercepts too, as if a reflection in the x-axis also flipped the sign of every x-value.
15. (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.
16. (a) A translation by vector (0, 3) — y = x² + 3 adds a constant outside the squaring, so it is a vertical translation of y = x² — every point moves the same distance parallel to the y-axis, with no change in x. The vector is (0, 3), matching the +3. A vector of (3, 0) confuses this with a horizontal shift; (0, −3) has the right axis but the wrong sign, since the graph moves up, not down; a stretch changes the shape of the curve, which adding a constant term never does.
17. (c) Correct: 3y = 4 − x gives f⁻¹(x) = (4 − x)/3 — Swap x and y: x = 4 − 3y. Add 3y to both sides and subtract x from both sides: 3y = 4 − x. Divide by 3: y = (4 − x)/3, which is exactly what Ben wrote — his rearrangement is correct. Check with a value: f(1) = 4 − 3 = 1, and Ben's formula gives (4 − 1)/3 = 1, which matches. 'Correct, but only because f is its own inverse' gives the right verdict for a false reason — f(f(x)) = 4 − 3(4 − 3x) = 9x − 8, which is not x, so f is not self-inverse; Ben's rearrangement is correct for the ordinary algebraic reason above, not because of any special property of f. 'Wrong: sign kept, giving (−4 − x)/3' comes from not carrying the swap through consistently — testing x = 1 gives (−4 − 1)/3 = −5/3, which does not equal 1, so it is wrong. 'Wrong: correct inverse is (x − 4)/3' comes from writing 3y = x − 4 instead of 3y = 4 − x, a sign slip when isolating y — testing x = 1 gives (1 − 4)/3 = −1, which again does not equal 1.
18. (c) (1/3)b − (1/3)a — Method: PQ runs from P to Q, so PQ = OQ − OP. Working: PQ = (1/3)b − (1/3)a. Answer: PQ = (1/3)b − (1/3)a. Subtracting the other way round gives (1/3)a − (1/3)b, the same vector pointing back from Q to P instead of P to Q; using 2/3 instead of the 1/3 that OP and OQ were actually given as gives (2/3)b − (2/3)a; and using the full vectors a and b with no scaling at all gives b − a, which is AB, not PQ. Always subtract START from END, OQ − OP, and carry the fraction given in the question through to your final vector.