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.The diameter of an artificial silk fibre is 4 × 10⁻⁶ metres. One nanometre is 10⁻⁹ metres. Work out the diameter of the fibre in nanometres.
- 2.Round 0.006482 to 2 significant figures.
- 3.A carton of orange juice holds 1.35 litres. Ruby pours the juice equally into 4 identical glasses. Work out how much juice is in each glass, giving your answer as a fraction of a litre in its simplest form.
- 4.Which of these numbers rounds to 0.048 when rounded to 2 significant figures?
- 5.Two fair six-sided dice are rolled and their scores are added together. By listing the possible totals systematically, work out how many different totals are possible.
- 6.A quantity surveyor calculates a length as 24.6851 m. Round this length to 2 decimal places.
- 7.3/5 of the students in a year group walk to school. 90 students walk to school. Work out the total number of students in the year group.
- 8.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.
- 9.Work out (5 × 10⁴) ÷ (2 × 10⁻²). Give your answer in standard form.
- 10.A water tank holds 80 litres when full. It currently contains 60 litres. Work out what fraction of the tank is empty.
- 11.3.4 × 10⁵ is written as an ordinary number. Work out this number.
- 12.Put these numbers in order, starting with the smallest: 3.2 × 10⁴, 2.9 × 10⁵, 4.1 × 10³
- 13.A recipe uses 0.625 kg of flour. Write this mass as a fraction of a kilogram, in its simplest form.
- 14.A restaurant adds a service charge of 15% to a bill of £120. Work out the service charge.
- 15.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.
Answer key
- (a) 4,000 nanometres — Method: the number of nanometres is the diameter divided by the length of one nanometre, and dividing powers of ten means subtracting the indices. Working: −6 − (−9) = 3, so 10⁻⁶ ÷ 10⁻⁹ = 10³, and the diameter is 4 × 10³ nanometres. Answer: 4,000 nanometres. The distractors: 400 nanometres comes from taking the difference between the indices as 2 instead of 3; 4 nanometres comes from changing the name of the unit without converting, leaving the coefficient untouched; 0.004 nanometres comes from dividing by 10³ instead of multiplying by it, as though a nanometre were the larger of the two units.
- (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.
- (d) 27/80 — Method: write the total as a fraction of a litre, then divide by the number of glasses. Working: 1.35 = 27/20, so each glass holds 27/20 ÷ 4 = 27/80 of a litre. Answer: 27/80. 27/20 comes from converting the total correctly to a fraction but forgetting to divide by the number of glasses. 27/5 comes from multiplying the total by 4 instead of dividing. 17/50 comes from rounding 1.35 ÷ 4 to 0.34 before converting to a fraction.
- (c) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
- (a) 11 — Method: list every possible total from the smallest to the largest, and count how many different values there are. Working: the smallest total is 1+1=2 and the largest is 6+6=12, and every whole number total from 2 to 12 is possible: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 — that is 11 different totals. Answer: 11. 36 comes from counting the number of possible dice outcomes (6×6) instead of the number of different totals. 10 comes from listing the totals but missing one from the ends of the list, for example starting at 3 instead of 2. 6 comes from counting only the number of different scores on one die, not the totals of both dice together.
- (d) 24.69 — To round to 2 decimal places, look only at the third decimal digit to decide whether the second decimal digit rounds up. In 24.6851 the third decimal digit is 5, and since 5 is 5 or more, the second decimal digit rounds up from 8 to 9, giving 24.69. Rounding to 1 decimal place instead of 2 gives 24.7, one place value too coarse. Keeping the third decimal digit rather than dropping it gives 24.685, which is 3 decimal places. Looking at the fourth decimal digit, 1, instead of the third one, and wrongly deciding that no rounding is needed, leaves the length unrounded at 24.68.
- (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
- (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) 2.5 × 10⁶ — Divide the A values: 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5. Subtract the powers of 10: 4 − (−2) = 4 + 2 = 6. So the answer is 2.5 × 10⁶. A candidate who worked out 4 − 2 = 2, treating the subtraction of a negative as an ordinary subtraction, wrote 2.5 × 10². A candidate who subtracted in the wrong order, −2 − 4 = −6, wrote 2.5 × 10⁻⁶. A candidate who multiplied the A values instead of dividing, 5 × 2 = 10, and added the powers, 4 + (−2) = 2, then rewrote 10 × 10² in standard form as 1 × 10³.
- (a) 1/4 — The empty part of the tank is 80 − 60 = 20 litres. As a fraction of the full capacity, this is 20/80, which simplifies to 1/4. Finding the fraction of the tank that is FULL instead of empty, 60/80, simplifies to 3/4 — the wrong quantity for the question asked. Writing the empty amount over the amount remaining instead of over the full capacity, 20/60, simplifies to 1/3. Comparing the empty amount to 100 instead of to the tank's actual capacity of 80, 20/100, gives 1/5.
- (d) 340,000 — 3.4 × 10⁵ means moving the decimal point in 3.4 five places to the right, giving 340,000. Moving it only four places gives 34,000, one place short. Moving it six places gives 3,400,000, one place too many. Treating the exponent as negative instead of positive moves the point the wrong way, giving 0.000034.
- (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.
- (c) 5/8 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.625 = 625/1000 = 5/8 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 125). Answer: 5/8. 25/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 31/50 comes from rounding 0.625 to 0.62 before converting. 8/5 comes from simplifying correctly to 5/8 and then writing the fraction upside down.
- (a) £18 — Method: the percentage acts as an operator on the bill, and 15% can be built from 10% and 5%, where 5% is half of 10%. Working: 10% of £120 is £120 ÷ 10 = £12, and 5% is half of that, £6, so the charge is £12 + £6 = £18. Answer: £18. The distractors: £8 comes from reading 15% as one fifteenth and working out £120 ÷ 15 = £8; £12 comes from finding 10% of the bill and stopping there; £138 comes from finding the charge correctly and then giving the new total, £120 + £18, rather than the charge the question asks for.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.