🔺 Higher stretch — grade 8 and 9 topics

Answer key

1. (a) Positive x-direction, 90°; image is y = sin x. — Writing cos(x − 90°) as cos(x − a) with a = 90 shows this is a horizontal translation, y = f(x − a), which moves the graph 90° in the positive x-direction; the identity cos(x − 90°) = sin x confirms the image is y = sin x. Choosing the negative x-direction reverses the sign inside the bracket — subtracting inside the bracket always translates in the positive x-direction, not the negative one, so that statement is wrong on direction. Getting the direction right but conflating the subtraction inside the bracket with an extra reflection of the output flips the sign of the resulting graph, wrongly giving y = −sin x. Treating the subtraction as if it changed the output directly, rather than the input, wrongly calls this a vertical translation even while still correctly recalling that the image simplifies to y = sin x.
2. (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.
3. (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'.
4. (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.
5. (b) 2/11 — Method: restrict the 36 equally likely outcomes to those where at least one die shows a 5, then find what fraction of THOSE give a total of 8. Working: outcomes with at least one 5: (5, 1), (5, 2), (5, 3), (5, 4), (5, 5), (5, 6), (1, 5), (2, 5), (3, 5), (4, 5), (6, 5) — 11 outcomes. Among these, the total is 8 for (5, 3) and (3, 5) — 2 outcomes. P(total 8 | at least one 5) = 2/11. Answer: 2/11. Watch out: 5/36 is P(total 8) over the full 36 outcomes — it ignores that you already know one die shows a 5. Treating the condition as 'the first die shows a 5' instead of 'at least one die shows a 5' restricts you to only 6 outcomes and misses the (3, 5) case, giving 1/6. And counting only (5, 3) but not its reverse (3, 5) inside the correct 11-outcome list gives 1/11 instead of 2/11.
6. (c) 15/23 — Method: find P(rough and delayed) and the overall P(delayed) using the tree, then divide. Working: P(rough and delayed) = 0.2 × 0.75 = 0.15. P(calm and delayed) = 0.8 × 0.1 = 0.08. P(delayed) = 0.15 + 0.08 = 0.23. P(rough | delayed) = 0.15 ÷ 0.23 = 15/23. Answer: 15/23. Watch out: leaving the answer as 0.15 (3/20) gives P(rough and delayed) itself, without dividing by the overall probability that a crossing is delayed. Giving 0.75 (3/4) is the probability you were told to start with — that a crossing is delayed GIVEN the sea is rough — which is the reverse of what's being asked. And 0.2 (1/5) is just the original probability that the sea is rough, before you take the fact that the crossing was delayed into account.
7. (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.
8. (d) 4x + 5 — A minus sign directly before a bracket changes the sign of both terms inside it: 6x − (2x − 5) = 6x − 2x + 5 = 4x + 5. The option 4x − 5 comes from only changing the sign of the 2x term and not the −5, giving 6x − 2x − 5. The option 8x − 5 comes from adding 2x instead of subtracting it, as if the minus sign did not apply to the bracket, giving 6x + 2x − 5. The option 8x + 5 repeats that same addition mistake and also changes the sign of the −5 term.
9. (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.
10. (a) 3 — y = f(x + 2) is f(x) translated 2 units to the LEFT (inside the bracket, adding moves the graph in the negative x-direction). The root moves with the whole graph: 5 − 2 = 3. Moving right instead of left gives 7; assuming a bracket shift leaves the root unchanged gives 5; writing down the shift amount 2 itself skips the translation altogether.
11. (c) y = x² — Method: test a candidate rule against every pair given, not just one — a rule that fits one pair and fails another is not the rule. Working: the outputs 1, 4, 9 rise by 3 and then by 5, so they are not going up in equal steps and the input is not simply multiplied by a fixed number; comparing each output with its own input gives 1 × 1 = 1, 2 × 2 = 4 and 3 × 3 = 9, and all three pairs fit. Answer: y = x². The distractors: y = 3x comes from fitting only the last pair, where 3 × 3 = 9, and reading that 3 as a multiplier; y = 3x − 2 comes from assuming a multiply-then-add rule and using the first step in the outputs, 4 − 1 = 3, as the multiplier — it fits the first two pairs and fails the third; y = 2x comes from fitting only the pair 2 and 4 and reading every output as double its input.
12. (c) (1/3)a + (2/3)b — Method: OP = OA + AP, and since AP is twice PB, AP is 2/3 of the whole of AB, with AB = b − a. Working: OP = a + 2/3(b − a) = a − (2/3)a + (2/3)b = (1/3)a + (2/3)b. Answer: OP = (1/3)a + (2/3)b. Measuring 2/3 of AB from B's end instead of A's swaps the fractions round, giving (2/3)a + (1/3)b; adding (2/3)b onto the whole of a without first subtracting a inside the bracket gives a + (2/3)b; and treating the ratio as though AP and PB were equal gives the midpoint, (1/2)a + (1/2)b. Convert the ratio to a fraction of AB measured from the point named first in the ratio, subtract before you scale, and then add the result to OA.
13. (b) 2x + 3 — fg(x) means f(g(x)): apply g first, then apply f to the result. g(x) = 2x, so f(g(x)) = f(2x) = 2x + 3. Writing 2x + 6 comes from working out gf(x) instead — g(f(x)) = g(x + 3) = 2(x + 3) = 2x + 6 — which applies the functions in the wrong order. Writing 3x + 3 comes from adding f(x) and g(x) together, (x + 3) + 2x = 3x + 3, instead of composing them. Writing 2x² + 6x comes from multiplying f(x) and g(x) together, (x + 3)(2x) = 2x² + 6x, instead of substituting one into the other.
14. (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.
15. (a) 1.6 — Method: on a histogram the height of a bar is the frequency density, and frequency density = frequency ÷ class width. Working: the class 15 ≤ t < 30 runs from 15 to 30, so its width is 30 − 15 = 15 minutes; the frequency is 24, so the frequency density is 24 ÷ 15 = 1.6. Answer: 1.6 people per minute. The distractors: 360 comes from multiplying the frequency by the class width, 24 × 15, which uses the area rule backwards — area gives the frequency, so the frequency must be divided by the width to give the height; 0.625 comes from dividing the class width by the frequency, 15 ÷ 24, reversing the formula; 0.8 comes from dividing by the upper class boundary, 24 ÷ 30, instead of by the width of the class.
16. (a) y = (4/3)x + 25/3 — The radius from (0, 0) to (−4, 3) has gradient 3 ÷ (−4) = −3/4. The tangent is perpendicular to the radius, so its gradient is the negative reciprocal, 4/3. Using y − y₁ = m(x − x₁) with the point (−4, 3): y − 3 = (4/3)(x + 4), so y = (4/3)x + 16/3 + 3 = (4/3)x + 25/3. Using the radius's own gradient, −3/4, instead of taking the perpendicular gradient, gives y − 3 = (−3/4)(x + 4), which simplifies to y = −(3/4)x once the −3 and +3 in the constant cancel out. Taking the reciprocal of the radius's gradient but keeping the wrong sign, using −4/3 instead of 4/3, gives y = −(4/3)x − 7/3. Correctly finding the gradient 4/3 and expanding the bracket, but forgetting to add the y-coordinate 3 at the end, gives y = (4/3)x + 16/3.
17. (a) False — 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 12, not 8x − 3. — Expand the bracket by multiplying both terms by 4: 4 × 2x = 8x and 4 × (−3) = −12, so 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 12, which is not 8x − 3 — the student is wrong. Saying 4(2x − 3) = 8x − 3 comes from multiplying only the 2x by 4 and copying the −3 across unchanged. Saying 4(2x − 3) = 2x − 12 comes from multiplying only the −3 by 4 and leaving 2x unmultiplied. Claiming it is true because both expressions are linear ignores that equivalence depends on the actual coefficients, not the type of expression.
18. (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.