Printable · GCSE Foundation · ages 14-16
Number worksheet — GCSE Foundation
Fifteen questions across the number statements at Foundation tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Calculator
Number worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- 1.Leah measures the length of her classroom with a tape measure marked in centimetres. She writes the length down as 7.3157 m. Give a reason why this is not an appropriate degree of accuracy.
- 2.Light travels at 3 × 10⁸ metres per second. Work out how far light travels in 2 × 10⁻⁶ seconds. Give your answer in standard form.
- 3.Write 0.0038 in standard form.
- 4.A washing machine costs £320 before VAT. VAT is charged at 20%. Work out the total price including VAT.
- 5.Four friends share a restaurant bill of £53.90 equally. A calculator gives each share as 13.475. Work out how much each friend should pay.
- 6.Round 0.006482 to 2 significant figures.
- 7.A photograph uses 4 × 10⁶ bytes of storage. A memory card holds 3.2 × 10¹⁰ bytes. Work out how many of these photographs the card can hold. Give your answer in standard form.
- 8.A spinner has 4 colours and a coin has 2 sides. Work out how many different outcomes are possible when the spinner is spun once and the coin is tossed once.
- 9.A number, n, is equal to 3.7 when rounded to 1 decimal place. Write down the error interval for n.
- 10.A country's population is 8,340,000, and it is estimated that 1,950,000 of them live in the capital city. By rounding each number to 1 significant figure, work out an estimate for the number of people who do not live in the capital city.
- 11.Work out (8 × 10⁻⁵) × (5 × 10³). Give your answer in standard form.
- 12.A courier's van has a weight limit of 850 kg for its parcels. The driver's display shows the total mass of the parcels loaded as 850 kg, correct to the nearest 5 kg. Decide whether the parcels are definitely within the weight limit.
- 13.Write these decimals in order, starting with the smallest: 0.6, 0.55, 0.601, 0.5, 0.56
- 14.The number of pages in a book is 240, correct to the nearest 10 pages. Write down the error interval for the actual number of pages, n.
- 15.Put these numbers in order, starting with the smallest: 3.2 × 10⁴, 2.9 × 10⁵, 4.1 × 10³
Answer key
- (a) The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre — Method: a measurement should never be written to a finer degree of accuracy than the instrument used can read. Working: the tape is marked in centimetres, so the smallest division Leah can read is 1 cm, which is 0.01 m and two decimal places in metres; writing 7.3157 m claims the length to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, four decimal places, which the markings cannot support. A record of 7.32 m, to the nearest centimetre, is what this tape justifies. Answer: The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre. The distractors: the nearest millimetre contradicts the markings described in the question, which are centimetres, and would still claim more accuracy than the tape offers; the rule that a length in metres must be written to 2 decimal places borrows the habit of writing money to the penny, when the accuracy of a length depends on the instrument; rounding to the nearest metre would throw away accuracy the tape genuinely provides.
- (a) 6 × 10² metres — Method: distance = speed × time, so multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 3 × 2 = 6 for the coefficients, and 8 + (−6) = 2 for the indices; 6 lies between 1 and 10, so the coefficient needs no adjustment. Answer: 6 × 10² metres, which is 600 metres. The distractors: 5 × 10² metres comes from adding the coefficients, 3 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 6 × 10¹⁴ metres comes from subtracting the indices, 8 − (−6), which is the rule for dividing rather than for multiplying; 6 × 10⁻⁴⁸ metres comes from multiplying the indices, 8 × (−6), instead of adding them.
- (a) 3.8 × 10⁻³ — 0.0038 is less than 1, so the power of 10 is negative. Moving the decimal point 3 places gives A = 3.8, so 0.0038 = 3.8 × 10⁻³. A candidate who wrote 3.8 × 10³ used a positive power, which is only correct for numbers of 10 or more. A candidate who wrote 38 × 10⁻⁴ used a value of A outside the required range. A candidate who wrote 3.8 × 10⁻⁴ counted one place too many when moving the decimal point.
- (c) £384.00 — Adding 20% VAT means multiplying the price by 1.2: £320 × 1.2 = £384.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £320 + £20, gives £340.00. Working out the VAT amount alone, £320 × 0.2 = £64.00, and stopping there without adding it back to the original price gives just the VAT, not the total price. Misplacing the decimal point and using 2% instead of 20%, £320 × 1.02, gives £326.40.
- (b) £13.48 — Method: an amount of money is written to the nearest penny, which is 2 decimal places, so the calculator display has to be rounded to 2 decimal places. Working: 53.90 ÷ 4 = 13.475, and the digit in the third decimal place is 5, so the penny digit goes up from 7 to 8. Answer: £13.48. The distractors: £13.47 comes from chopping the third decimal place off instead of rounding with it; £13.50 comes from rounding to the nearest 10p rather than to the nearest penny; £13.40 comes from cutting the display short at 1 decimal place, which is both the wrong degree of accuracy and a truncation rather than a rounding.
- (c) 0.0065 — Leading zeros are never significant, so counting from the first non-zero digit, the first two significant figures of 0.006482 are 6 and 4. Look at the next digit along, 8, to decide whether the second figure rounds up: since 8 is 5 or more, the 4 rounds up to 5, giving 0.0065. Rounding to 2 decimal places instead of 2 significant figures gives 0.01, which answers a different question. Wrongly counting one of the leading zeros as a significant figure and stopping one figure short gives 0.006. Keeping an extra digit, as in 0.00648, gives 3 significant figures rather than 2.
- (a) 8 × 10³ — Method: divide the capacity of the card by the size of one photograph, dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices, then bring the coefficient back into the range 1 to 10. Working: 3.2 ÷ 4 = 0.8 and 10 − 6 = 4, which gives 0.8 × 10⁴; a coefficient of 0.8 is smaller than 1, so the decimal point moves one place to the right and the index falls by 1. Answer: 8 × 10³. The distractors: 8 × 10⁴ comes from correcting 0.8 to 8 without reducing the index, which makes the answer ten times too large; 1.28 × 10¹⁷ comes from multiplying the two numbers instead of dividing them, since 3.2 × 4 = 12.8 and 10 + 6 = 16; 8 × 10¹⁵ comes from dividing the coefficients but adding the indices instead of subtracting them.
- (c) 8 — Each of the 4 spinner outcomes can be paired with each of the 2 coin outcomes, so multiply: 4 × 2 = 8. 6 comes from adding the two numbers instead of multiplying them. 4 comes from using only the spinner outcomes and ignoring the coin. 2 comes from using only the coin outcomes and ignoring the spinner.
- (b) 3.65 ≤ n < 3.75 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means n can be up to half of one decimal place, 0.05, below or above 3.7 before it would round to a different value. This gives a lower bound of 3.7 − 0.05 = 3.65 and an upper bound of 3.7 + 0.05 = 3.75. A value exactly at 3.75 would round up to 3.8, not 3.7, so the upper bound is excluded while the lower bound, 3.65, does still round to 3.7. Writing 3.65 ≤ n ≤ 3.75 wrongly includes 3.75. Writing 3.6 ≤ n < 3.8 uses a whole decimal place, 0.1, either side instead of half of one, 0.05. Writing 3.65 < n < 3.75 wrongly excludes 3.65, which does round to 3.7.
- (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
- (c) 4 × 10⁻¹ — Multiply the A values: 8 × 5 = 40. Add the powers of 10: −5 + 3 = −2, giving 40 × 10⁻². Since A must satisfy 1 ≤ A < 10, rewrite 40 as 4 × 10¹, so 40 × 10⁻² = 4 × 10¹ × 10⁻² = 4 × 10⁻¹. A candidate who stopped at 40 × 10⁻² did the index arithmetic correctly but left the answer outside standard form, since 40 is not between 1 and 10. A candidate who adjusted the A value to 4 correctly but then took the power of 10 by subtracting the two given powers, −5 − 3 = −8, wrote 4 × 10⁻⁸. A candidate who adjusted the A value to 4 but multiplied the two given powers, −5 × 3 = −15, wrote 4 × 10⁻¹⁵. Both of these forgot that multiplying in standard form means adding the powers.
- (b) No, the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg — Method: find the upper bound of the true mass and compare it with the weight limit. Working: the display is correct to the nearest 5 kg, so half of 5 kg is 2.5 kg, and the true mass, m kg, satisfies 847.5 ≤ m < 852.5. Part of that interval lies above 850 kg, so the parcels are not definitely within the limit. Answer: the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg, which is above the limit. ("Yes, the display reads 850 kg, which is not above the limit" compares the limit with the displayed value instead of with the largest value the true mass could take. "Yes, the true mass is at least 847.5 kg and at most 850 kg" uses the correct half unit below but caps the interval at the limit instead of at 852.5 kg. "No, 850 kg on the display rounds up to 855 kg" wrongly treats the displayed value as if it rounds again.)
- (a) 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601 — Compare the decimals by giving them all the same number of decimal places first: 0.600, 0.550, 0.601, 0.500, 0.560. Ordering these from smallest to largest gives 0.500, 0.550, 0.560, 0.600, 0.601, which is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601. Comparing the digits as though they were whole numbers, reading 0.601 as "601" and 0.5 as "5", without padding to the same number of decimal places, gives the wrong order 0.5, 0.6, 0.55, 0.56, 0.601, because it ignores the place value of each digit. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 0.601, 0.6, 0.56, 0.55, 0.5. Misreading the close values 0.55 and 0.56 and swapping them gives 0.5, 0.56, 0.55, 0.6, 0.601. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601.
- (b) 235 ≤ n < 245 — Method: the error interval stretches half the rounding unit either side of the rounded value, with the upper bound excluded because it would round up to the next value. Working: half of 10 is 5, so the interval runs from 240 − 5 to 240 + 5. Answer: 235 ≤ n < 245. (230 ≤ n < 250 comes from using the whole rounding unit, 10, either side instead of half of it. 235 ≤ n ≤ 245 comes from including the upper bound with ≤ instead of excluding it with <. 239.5 ≤ n < 240.5 comes from rounding to the nearest whole number instead of the nearest 10, so half of 1 is used in place of half of 10.)
- (c) 4.1 × 10³, 3.2 × 10⁴, 2.9 × 10⁵ — The exponent decides the size first: 10³ is smaller than 10⁴, which is smaller than 10⁵, so the order is 4.1 × 10³, then 3.2 × 10⁴, then 2.9 × 10⁵. Reversing the whole list gives largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. Comparing 3.2 × 10⁴ and 4.1 × 10³ by their coefficients alone, 3.2 against 4.1, and swapping them ignores that 10⁴ is bigger than 10³ regardless of the coefficient. Comparing 2.9 × 10⁵ and 3.2 × 10⁴ by their coefficients alone and swapping them makes the same mistake at the top of the list.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.