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.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.A country has an area of 25,000,000 hectares. Write this area in standard form.
- 3.A gym increases its membership price by 1/5. The original price is £60. Work out the new price.
- 4.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.
- 5.Work out 1/2 of 1/4 of 80.
- 6.Write 0.0038 in standard form.
- 7.Which statement about the number 91 is correct?
- 8.Work out an estimate for 312 × 19, by rounding each number to 1 significant figure.
- 9.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.
- 10.A plumber charges a call-out fee of £45 and then £28 for each hour she works. She is at a house from 09:15 until 12:45. Work out the total charge.
- 11.3.4 × 10⁵ is written as an ordinary number. Work out this number.
- 12.Write down the value of 3⁰
- 13.£60 is shared between Amir, Bo and Chen in the ratio 1:2:3. Work out the fraction of the £60 that Amir and Bo receive together.
- 14.Round 4,685 to the nearest 100.
- 15.A space probe is 7.5 × 10⁸ km from Earth. Write this distance as an ordinary number.
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.
- (a) 2.5 × 10⁷ — Method: place the decimal point so that the coefficient is at least 1 and less than 10, then count the places it has moved. Working: the digits give a coefficient of 2.5, and the decimal point travels from the end of 25,000,000 until it sits between the 2 and the 5, a move of 7 places. Answer: 2.5 × 10⁷. The distractors: 25 × 10⁶ is the same area but not in standard form, because the coefficient must be less than 10; 2.5 × 10⁸ comes from counting the eight digits of 25,000,000 instead of the seven places the decimal point moves; 2.5 × 10⁻⁷ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left.
- (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
- (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.
- (b) 10 — First find 1/4 of 80, which is 20, then find 1/2 of that: 20 ÷ 2 = 10. Adding the two fractions together instead of applying them one after the other, 1/2 + 1/4 = 3/4, and finding 3/4 of 80 gives 60. Finding 1/4 of 80 = 20 correctly but stopping before applying the second fraction leaves 20 as the final answer. Finding 1/2 of 80 = 40 first but forgetting to then find 1/4 of that leaves 40 as the final answer.
- (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.
- (a) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.
- (c) 6000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 312 rounds to 300 (1 s.f.) and 19 rounds to 20 (1 s.f.). 300 × 20 = 6000. Answer: 6000. 5928 is the exact value of 312 × 19, found by multiplying without rounding first, which is not an estimate. 600 comes from rounding 19 down to 2 instead of to 20, losing a zero from its place value. 6200 comes from rounding 312 to the nearest 10, 310, instead of to 1 significant figure, 300, then multiplying by the correctly rounded 20.
- (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.
- (d) £143 — From 09:15 to 12:45 is 3 hours 30 minutes, which is 3.5 hours. The charge for the time is 3.5 × £28 = £98, and the call-out fee is added on once: £98 + £45 = £143. £98 leaves out the call-out fee altogether, £129 charges for 3 hours instead of 3.5 hours, and £255.50 adds the fee to the hourly rate before multiplying, which charges the £45 for every hour.
- (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.
- (d) 1 — Method: any non-zero number raised to the power zero has the same value, which follows from dividing a power by itself. Working: 3² ÷ 3² subtracts the indices to give 3⁰, and the same division worked out directly is 9 ÷ 9 = 1, so 3⁰ = 1. Answer: 1. The distractors: 0 comes from reading the index as the value of the whole expression; 3 comes from treating a zero index as leaving the base unchanged; 1/3 comes from confusing a zero index with a negative index and taking the reciprocal of 3.
- (a) 1/2 — The ratio 1:2:3 has 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts in total. Amir and Bo together receive 1 + 2 = 3 of those parts, so together they receive 3/6 of the £60, which simplifies to 1/2. Using only Amir's single part, 1/6, ignores Bo's share entirely. Adding Bo's and Chen's parts instead of Amir's and Bo's, 2 + 3 = 5, gives 5/6. Comparing Amir and Bo's 3 parts to Chen's 3 parts, rather than to the total of 6 parts, gives 3/3 = 1.
- (b) 4,700 — To round to the nearest 100, look at the digit in the tens column, which decides whether the hundreds column rounds up or stays the same. In 4,685 that digit is 8, and since 8 is 5 or more, the 6 in the hundreds column rounds up to 7, giving 4,700. Simply changing the last two digits to zero without checking the tens digit gives 4,600, which rounds down when it should round up. Rounding to the nearest 10 instead of the nearest 100 gives 4,690. Rounding to the nearest 1,000 instead gives 5,000, one place value too coarse.
- (b) 750,000,000 — Method: multiplying by 10⁸ moves the decimal point eight places to the right, and every empty place is filled with a zero. Working: 10⁸ = 100,000,000, and moving the decimal point in 7.5 eight places to the right gives 7.5 × 100,000,000. Answer: 750,000,000. The distractors: 7,500,000,000 comes from removing the decimal point first to make 75 and then writing eight zeros after it, which carries the digits one place too far; 600 comes from reading 10⁸ as 10 × 8 = 80 and working out 7.5 × 80; 0.000000075 comes from moving the decimal point eight places to the left, as though the index were negative.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.