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.Last year a company made a profit of £5,200,000. Write this amount in standard form.
- 2.Which one of these statements is true?
- 3.Work out √25 + 4² − 12 ÷ 3
- 4.Write 0.00072 in standard form.
- 5.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.
- 6.Write these numbers in order, starting with the smallest: 3, −1, 0, −5
- 7.Hannah works out 3.1 × 19.6 on her calculator and writes down 6.076. Work out an estimate for 3.1 × 19.6, by rounding each number to 1 significant figure.
- 8.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.
- 9.Nadia has £84. She spends 3/7 of it on a jacket and the rest on a bag. Work out the ratio of the amount spent on the jacket to the amount spent on the bag, in its simplest form.
- 10.Using only 20p coins and 10p coins, and at least one of each, work out how many different ways there are to make exactly 60p. List the possibilities systematically.
- 11.Freya uses her calculator to work out 7² and writes down 14. Work out the correct value of 7².
- 12.Round 0.0759 to 2 decimal places.
- 13.Work out 3 × (−2)² − 5
- 14.The number 36 can be written as 2² × 3², and the number 84 can be written as 2² × 3 × 7. Work out the highest common factor of 36 and 84.
- 15.Work out 4π + 2π, giving your answer as a multiple of π.
Answer key
- (b) 5.2 × 10⁶ — Method: write the digits as a coefficient that is at least 1 and less than 10, then count the places the decimal point moves to reach that position. Working: the digits give a coefficient of 5.2, and the decimal point travels from the end of 5,200,000 until it sits between the 5 and the 2, a move of 6 places. Answer: 5.2 × 10⁶. The distractors: 52 × 10⁵ is the same amount but not in standard form, because 52 is not less than 10; 5.2 × 10⁵ comes from counting the five zeros in 5,200,000 rather than the six places the decimal point moves; 5.2 × 10⁻⁶ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left.
- (c) −5 ≤ −5 — The symbol ≤ means 'less than or equal to', and −5 is equal to −5, so this statement is true. −3 ≥ −1 is false: a candidate who ignores the negative signs and compares 3 with 1 would wrongly think −3 is the bigger number, but on the number line −3 is smaller than −1. 0.4 < 2/5 is false because 2/5 converts to exactly 0.4, so the two values are equal, not one strictly less than the other — a candidate who assumes a fraction is automatically bigger than a similar-looking decimal without converting it would miss this. 7/10 ≤ 0.6 is false because 7/10 converts to 0.7, which is bigger than 0.6; a candidate who misplaces the decimal point and converts 7/10 as 0.07 would wrongly believe this statement is true.
- (b) 17 — Roots and powers are worked out first: √25 = 5 and 4² = 16. Division comes next: 12 ÷ 3 = 4. Then addition and subtraction, left to right: 5 + 16 − 4 = 17. A candidate who treated 4² as 4 × 2 = 8, multiplying the base by the exponent instead of squaring it, worked out 5 + 8 − 4 = 9. A candidate who did not evaluate the root and used 25 itself worked out 25 + 16 − 4 = 37. A candidate who ignored the priority of division and worked through 5 + 16 − 12 ÷ 3 strictly left to right got 5 + 16 = 21, then 21 − 12 = 9, then 9 ÷ 3 = 3.
- (a) 7.2 × 10⁻⁴ — 0.00072 = 7.2 × 10⁻⁴, moving the decimal point 4 places to the right to reach 7.2, so the exponent is negative. Writing 7.2 × 10⁴ uses a positive exponent, which would give a number far larger than 1, not a small decimal. Writing 7.2 × 10⁻⁵ moves the point one place too many. Writing 0.72 × 10⁻³ leaves the coefficient below 1, which standard form does not allow.
- (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.
- (d) −5, −1, 0, 3 — Method: order the numbers by their position on a number line, smallest (furthest left) first. Working: both −5 and −1 lie to the left of 0, and 3 lies to the right of 0. Of the two negatives, −5 is 5 units from zero and −1 is 1 unit from zero, so −5 is further left. Answer: −5, −1, 0, 3. The distractors: 3, 0, −1, −5 is the correct order written the wrong way round, starting with the largest; −1, −5, 0, 3 comes from ordering the two negatives by the size of their digits, so that −1 is treated as the smaller; 0, −1, −5, 3 comes from believing that zero is the smallest number there is and then listing the negatives by their digits.
- (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
- (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.
- (c) 3:4 — The jacket costs 3/7 of £84, which is 3 × (84 ÷ 7) = 3 × 12 = £36. The bag then costs the rest of the money, £84 − £36 = £48. The ratio of the jacket to the bag is 36:48, which simplifies to 3:4. Writing the fraction spent on the jacket, 3/7, directly as the ratio, without working out that the bag's share is the remaining 4/7, gives 3:7. Giving the ratio the wrong way round, bag to jacket instead of jacket to bag, gives 4:3. Assuming the jacket and bag cost the same, ignoring the fraction given, gives 1:1.
- (a) 2 — Method: systematically try each possible number of 20p coins, starting from one, and check whether the amount left over can be made exactly using whole 10p coins. Working: one 20p coin leaves 40p, made from four 10p coins — valid. Two 20p coins leave 20p, made from two 10p coins — valid. Three 20p coins leave 0p, which needs zero 10p coins — not valid, since at least one 10p coin is required. So there are 2 different ways. Answer: 2. 3 comes from counting the case of three 20p coins and no 10p coins as if it were allowed, even though at least one 10p coin is required. 4 comes from ignoring the 'at least one of each' condition altogether and counting every way of making 60p, including three 20p coins with no 10p coins and six 10p coins with no 20p coins. 1 comes from finding only one of the two valid combinations and stopping the systematic list too early.
- (a) 49 — Method: 7² means 7 multiplied by itself. Working: 7 × 7 = 49. Answer: 49. 14 comes from working out 7 × 2, treating the power 2 as a number to multiply by rather than an instruction to multiply 7 by itself. 77 comes from writing the digit 7 twice side by side, treating the power as an instruction to repeat the digit rather than to multiply. 9 comes from working out 7 + 2, adding the base and the power instead of multiplying the base by itself.
- (a) 0.08 — Method: decimal places are counted from the decimal point, including any zeros straight after it, so rounding to 2 decimal places is decided by the digit in the third decimal place. Working: 0.0759 has 7 in the second decimal place and 5 in the third, and 5 counts as rounding up, so the 7 goes up to 8. Answer: 0.08. The distractors: 0.07 comes from chopping the digits after the second decimal place off instead of rounding them; 0.076 is 0.0759 correct to 2 significant figures rather than 2 decimal places, because the zeros in front of the 7 are not significant figures; 0.1 is 0.0759 rounded to 1 decimal place, a coarser degree of accuracy than the question asks for.
- (a) 7 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, then 3 × 4 = 12, and finally 12 − 5 = 7. Answer: 7. The distractors: −17 comes from squaring only the 2 and keeping the minus sign, giving 3 × (−4) = −12 and then −12 − 5 = −17; 31 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (3 × (−2))² = (−6)² = 36 and then 36 − 5 = 31; −3 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the multiplication, giving 3 × (4 − 5) = 3 × (−1) = −3.
- (a) 12 — Compare the powers of each prime that appears in both factorisations. In 2² × 3² and 2² × 3 × 7, the prime 2 appears with power 2 in both, and the prime 3 appears with power 2 in one and only power 1 in the other — take the lower power, 3¹. Multiplying the shared primes at their lower powers, 2² × 3, gives 12. Using power 1 for both primes instead of comparing the powers properly, 2 × 3, gives 6, which misses that 2 is common at power 2, not power 1. Multiplying the primes at their higher powers and including 7, which only appears in 84, gives 2² × 3² × 7, which comes to 252 — this is the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. Only spotting that 3 is a common prime and overlooking that 2 is common as well gives 3. So the highest common factor of 36 and 84 is 12.
- (d) 6π — 4π and 2π are like terms, both multiples of π, so they combine by adding their coefficients: 4 + 2 = 6, giving 6π. Multiplying the coefficients instead of adding them, 4 × 2 = 8, gives 8π. Treating the combination as if the two π's multiplied together as well as the coefficients gives 6π². Dropping the π altogether and adding only the coefficients gives 6.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.