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.
Non-calculator
Number worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- 1.Work out (4 × 10⁻³) × (2 × 10⁵). Give your answer in standard form.
- 2.A van has a mass of 2,000 kg, correct to 1 significant figure. Using m for the mass of the van in kilograms, write down the error interval for m.
- 3.Work out ⁴√16
- 4.Work out (−2/5) × (−10/3). Give your answer as a fraction in its simplest form.
- 5.Write 90 as a product of its prime factors.
- 6.Work out √49
- 7.Work out 2 × 3 × 5 + 1 and decide whether the result is a prime number.
- 8.Meera says that 0.7 ÷ 0.1 = 0.07. Work out the correct value of 0.7 ÷ 0.1.
- 9.Amelia estimates 48 × 21 by working out 50 × 20 = 1,000. Work out whether her estimate is an under-estimate or an over-estimate, and by how much.
- 10.Write 60 as a product of its prime factors, using index notation.
- 11.A quiz has 50 questions. Freya answers 10% of them incorrectly. Work out how many questions she answers incorrectly.
- 12.Work out (2 × 10³) × (3 × 10⁴). Give your answer in standard form.
- 13.In a fruit crate the ratio of oranges to lemons is 5 : 6. What fraction of the fruit in the crate are lemons?
- 14.Which statement about the number 51 is correct?
- 15.A shortbread recipe uses flour and butter in the ratio 5 : 2. Yuki changes the recipe by doubling the amount of butter but keeping the amount of flour the same. Work out the fraction of the new mixture that is butter.
Answer key
- (a) 8 × 10² — Method: to multiply numbers written in standard form, multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 4 × 2 = 8 for the coefficients, and −3 + 5 = 2 for the indices; 8 already lies between 1 and 10, so no adjustment is needed. Answer: 8 × 10². The distractors: 6 × 10² comes from adding the coefficients, 4 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 8 × 10⁸ comes from ignoring the minus sign and adding 3 + 5; 8 × 10⁻¹⁵ comes from multiplying the indices, −3 × 5, instead of adding them.
- (a) 1,500 ≤ m < 2,500 — Method: a four-digit figure written to 1 significant figure has been rounded to the nearest 1,000, so the mass lies within half of 1,000, that is 500, of the figure given. Working: 2,000 − 500 = 1,500 and 2,000 + 500 = 2,500. The lower limit is included, because 1,500 kg rounds up to 2,000 kg to 1 significant figure, while 2,500 kg rounds up to 3,000 kg, so the upper limit is not. Answer: 1,500 ≤ m < 2,500. The distractors: 1,950 ≤ m < 2,050 comes from rounding to the nearest 100 instead of to 1 significant figure; 1,000 ≤ m < 3,000 goes a whole 1,000 either side instead of half of it; 1,500 < m ≤ 2,500 has the two limits the wrong way round.
- (d) 2 — Method: a fourth root undoes raising to the power 4, so look for the number that gives 16 when it is multiplied by itself four times. Working: 2 × 2 = 4, 4 × 2 = 8 and 8 × 2 = 16, which uses four factors of 2. Answer: 2. The distractors: 4 comes from taking the square root of 16 instead of its fourth root; 8 comes from halving 16, treating any root as a halving; 64 comes from multiplying 16 by 4 instead of taking a fourth root.
- (d) 4/3 — Method: the product of two negative numbers is positive, so work with 2/5 × 10/3 and then simplify. Multiply the numerators together and the denominators together. Working: 2 × 10 = 20 and 5 × 3 = 15, giving 20/15; both 20 and 15 divide by 5, so 20/15 = 4/3. Answer: 4/3. The distractors: −4/3 has the arithmetic right but keeps a minus sign, from treating negative × negative as negative; 3/25 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 2/5 × 3/10 = 6/50; −56/15 comes from adding the two fractions instead of multiplying them, giving −6/15 − 50/15.
- (a) 2 × 3² × 5 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number until only prime factors remain. Working: 90 ÷ 2 = 45, 45 ÷ 3 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 90 = 2 × 3 × 3 × 5, written as 2 × 3² × 5. 2 × 3 × 15 stops before the 15 is broken down into 3 × 5, so it is not fully factorised. 3 × 3 × 10 stops before the 10 is broken down into 2 × 5. 2 × 45 stops after only one division. Answer: 2 × 3² × 5.
- (c) 7 — Method: a square root asks which positive number multiplied by itself gives the number under the root sign, so work up through the square numbers until one of them is 49. Working: 5 × 5 = 25, 6 × 6 = 36 and 7 × 7 = 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 9 comes from recalling the wrong square fact and pairing 49 with 9, when 9 × 9 = 81; 24.5 comes from treating a square root as a halving and working out 49 ÷ 2; 2401 comes from squaring 49 instead of square-rooting it, applying the inverse operation the wrong way round.
- (d) 31, which is prime — Method: work out the value, remembering that multiplication comes before addition, then test it for primality by dividing by each prime up to its square root. Working: 2 × 3 × 5 = 30, so the value is 30 + 1 = 31. Since 6² = 36 is larger than 31, only 2, 3 and 5 need testing: 31 is odd, 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder of 1, and 31 does not end in 0 or 5. It therefore has exactly two factors, 1 and itself. Answer: 31, which is prime. The distractors: 30, which is not prime comes from working out 2 × 3 × 5 and forgetting to add the 1; the claim that 31 = 1 × 31 makes it non-prime comes from treating any factor pair as proof, forgetting that a prime is allowed the pair 1 and itself; the claim that 31 is a multiple of 3 comes from assuming that a number containing the digit 3 divides by 3, when in fact 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder.
- (a) 7 — Dividing by 0.1 is the same as multiplying by 10, so 0.7 ÷ 0.1 = 7. Meera's answer of 0.07 comes from dividing 0.7 by 10 instead of by 0.1, the wrong way round. A candidate who confuses 0.1 with 0.01 multiplies by 100 instead of 10 and gets 70. A candidate who thinks dividing by a number less than 1 does not change the value gets 0.7.
- (c) An under-estimate, by 8 — Method: work out the exact product, then compare it with the estimate; an estimate that is smaller than the exact value is an under-estimate, and the difference between them is the size of the error. Working: 48 × 21 = 48 × 20 + 48 = 960 + 48 = 1,008, and 1,008 − 1,000 = 8, so the estimate falls short. Answer: an under-estimate, by 8. The distractors: an over-estimate by 8 has the size of the error right but the direction wrong, and comes from assuming that rounding 48 up to 50 must push the estimate above the exact value, without allowing for 21 being rounded down; an over-estimate by 19 comes from working out 48 × 21 as 48 × 20 + 21 = 981, adding a 21 where another 48 belongs; the claim that the estimate is exactly right comes from arguing that one number was rounded up and the other down, so the two changes must cancel.
- (b) 2² × 3 × 5 — Repeatedly divide 60 by prime numbers: 60 ÷ 2 = 30, 30 ÷ 2 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is itself prime. So 60 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 5, which in index notation is 2² × 3 × 5. Stopping the factor tree after only three divisions and writing 2 × 3 × 5 misses that the 2 divides in twice, and gives only 30, not 60. Squaring the 3 as well as the 2 gives 2² × 3² × 5, which comes to 180, far too big. Squaring the 5 instead of the 2 gives 2 × 3 × 5², which comes to 150, also too big. So 60 = 2² × 3 × 5.
- (a) 5 — Method: 10% is 10/100, which cancels to 1/10, so finding 10% of an amount means dividing it by 10. Working: 10% = 10/100 = 1/10, and 50 ÷ 10 = 5. Answer: 5 questions. The distractors: 10 comes from reading the 10% as a count of 10 questions rather than as an operator acting on the 50; 45 comes from working out how many questions Freya answers correctly, the other 90% of the quiz, instead of how many she gets wrong; 500 comes from multiplying by 10 instead of dividing by 10.
- (d) 6 × 10⁷ — Method: the coefficients and the powers of ten are handled separately — multiply the coefficients, and add the indices because the powers share the base 10. Working: 2 × 3 = 6 for the coefficients, and 10³ × 10⁴ = 10⁷ for the powers; 6 lies between 1 and 10, so the coefficient needs no adjustment. Answer: 6 × 10⁷. The distractors: 5 × 10⁷ comes from adding the coefficients, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; 6 × 10¹² comes from multiplying the indices, 3 × 4, instead of adding them; 6 × 10¹ comes from subtracting the indices, 4 − 3, which is the rule for dividing rather than for multiplying.
- (a) 6/11 — Method: add the parts of the ratio to find the total, then write the required part over the total. Working: 5 + 6 = 11 parts in total; lemons make up 6 of the 11 parts, so the fraction of lemons is 6/11, which is already in its simplest form. Answer: 6/11. 5/11 comes from finding the fraction of oranges instead of lemons. 5/6 comes from writing the ratio of oranges to lemons directly as a fraction instead of comparing lemons to the total. 6/5 comes from writing the ratio of lemons to oranges directly as a fraction instead of comparing lemons to the total.
- (d) 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17. — Check 51 for small prime factors: 51 ÷ 3 = 17, and both 3 and 17 are themselves prime, so 51 = 3 × 17 and 51 is not a prime number — it has factors other than 1 and itself. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 and concluding wrongly that none of them divide 51 misses that 3 does divide it exactly, so the claim that 51 is prime because it avoids 2, 3 and 5 is false. Assuming any odd number must be prime ignores that 51 = 3 × 17 is a counterexample — plenty of odd numbers are not prime. Misreading 51 as the even number 52 leads to the false claim that it is divisible by 2; 51 itself is odd, and 2 is not one of its factors. So 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17.
- (b) 4/9 — Method: double the butter part of the ratio, keeping flour the same, find the new total, then write butter's part over the new total. Working: the new ratio is flour : butter = 5 : 4, since butter doubles from 2 to 4. New total = 5 + 4 = 9. Fraction of butter = 4/9. Answer: 4/9. 2/9 comes from forgetting to double the butter part and using the original value 2 over the new total of 9. 4/7 comes from doubling the butter part correctly to 4 but keeping the old total of 7 instead of working out the new total. 2/5 comes from using the original ratio 5:2 directly as butter over flour without doubling anything.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.