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.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.
- 2.Round 0.006482 to 2 significant figures.
- 3.A charity raises money from a raffle and a cake sale in the ratio 5 : 3. Altogether the charity raises £320. Work out how much money the cake sale raised.
- 4.For any two whole numbers, the product of the numbers is equal to the product of their highest common factor and their lowest common multiple. The highest common factor of 6 and 8 is 2, and 6 × 8 = 48. Work out the lowest common multiple of 6 and 8.
- 5.Work out the value of ∛125.
- 6.Write 0.005 in standard form.
- 7.A cyclist rides at a steady speed of 8 metres per second. Work out this speed in kilometres per hour.
- 8.Which of these statements about −0.7 and −0.25 is true?
- 9.Work out 2 3/4 − 1 5/6. Give your answer as a fraction in its simplest form.
- 10.Four students work out 6 + 2 × 3. Which student has worked it out correctly?
- 11.Four weather stations each recorded their lowest overnight temperature. Which of these readings is the lowest?
- 12.Which statement about the number 51 is correct?
- 13.Write down the symbol that makes this statement true: 3/10 ___ 0.3
- 14.A charity bake sale sells 187 cakes at £2.95 each. By rounding each number to 1 significant figure, work out an estimate for the total amount raised.
- 15.Work out how many factors 36 has.
Answer key
- (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) 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) £120 — Total parts = 5 + 3 = 8, so one part is worth 320 ÷ 8 = 40 pounds. The cake sale is 3 parts, so it raised 3 × 40 = 120 pounds. £200 comes from working out the raffle's share, 5 × 40, instead of the cake sale's share. £40 comes from finding the value of one part but forgetting to multiply by 3. £192 comes from dividing the total by 5 instead of 8 to find the value of one part, 320 ÷ 5 = 64, then multiplying by 3, 3 × 64 = 192.
- (a) 24 — Method: rearrange the relationship so that the lowest common multiple stands alone; it is the product of the two numbers divided by their highest common factor. Working: 48 = 2 × the lowest common multiple, so the lowest common multiple is 48 ÷ 2 = 24. Checking, 24 is in the 6 times table and in the 8 times table. Answer: 24. The distractors: 48 comes from giving the product of the two numbers and never dividing by the highest common factor; 96 comes from multiplying by the highest common factor instead of dividing by it; 12 comes from dividing by the highest common factor twice, once for each of the two numbers.
- (a) 5 — Method: the cube root of a number is the value that multiplies by itself three times to give that number. Working: 5 × 5 × 5 = 125, so ∛125 = 5. 62.5 comes from working out 125 ÷ 2 = 62.5, halving the number instead of finding its cube root. 375 comes from working out 125 × 3 = 375, multiplying by 3 instead of cube-rooting it. 15625 comes from working out 125², squaring the number instead of finding its cube root. Answer: 5.
- (c) 5 × 10⁻³ — Method: in standard form the coefficient must be at least 1 and less than 10, and for a number smaller than 1 the index is negative and counts the places the decimal point moves to the right. Working: the only significant digit is 5, so the coefficient is 5; moving the decimal point in 0.005 three places to the right gives 5, so the index is −3. Answer: 5 × 10⁻³. The distractors: 0.5 × 10⁻² is the same value written the wrong way, because 0.5 is smaller than 1 and so is not an allowed coefficient; 5 × 10⁻² comes from counting the two zeros after the decimal point instead of the three places the point moves; 5 × 10³ comes from taking the index as positive, which describes a number in the thousands rather than one smaller than 1.
- (a) 28.8 km/h — A compound unit is converted one part at a time. There are 3600 seconds in an hour, so in one hour the cyclist travels 8 × 3600 = 28 800 metres. There are 1000 metres in a kilometre, so 28 800 m = 28 800 ÷ 1000 = 28.8 km/h. 28 800 km/h leaves the distance in metres, 0.48 km/h converts the seconds to minutes rather than to hours, and 2.22 km/h divides by 3.6 instead of multiplying.
- (b) −0.7 < −0.25 — Method: compare the two negative decimals by their distance from zero on a number line. Working: −0.7 is 0.7 away from zero and −0.25 is 0.25 away from zero, so −0.7 is further from zero in the negative direction, making it the smaller number. Answer: −0.7 < −0.25 is true. "−0.7 > −0.25" comes from comparing 0.7 and 0.25 as if both numbers were positive, ignoring the negative signs. "−0.7 = −0.25" comes from assuming the two numbers are equal because they are both negative decimals. "−0.7 ≥ −0.25" combines the false statement "−0.7 > −0.25" with the false statement "−0.7 = −0.25".
- (d) 11/12 — Convert both mixed numbers to improper fractions with a common denominator. 2 3/4 = 11/4, which is 33/12, and 1 5/6 = 11/6, which is 22/12. Subtracting, 33/12 − 22/12 gives 11/12, already in its simplest form. Forgetting to borrow, and instead subtracting the fraction parts the other way round to avoid a negative, 10/12 − 9/12 gives 1/12; adding that to the whole-number difference of 1 gives 13/12. Subtracting only the fraction parts, 9/12 − 10/12, and reporting just the size of that difference gives 1/12, which ignores the whole numbers altogether. Adding the two improper fractions instead of subtracting them, 33/12 + 22/12, gives 55/12. So 2 3/4 − 1 5/6 = 11/12.
- (c) Ben: 2 × 3 = 6, then 6 + 6 = 12 — Multiplication has priority over addition, so 2 × 3 = 6 is worked out first, then 6 + 6 = 12 — this is Ben's method. Amy adds 6 and 2 before multiplying: 6 + 2 = 8, then 8 × 3 = 24, breaking the priority rule. Chen multiplies the wrong pair of numbers, 6 and 2, instead of 2 and 3: 6 × 2 = 12, then 12 + 3 = 15. Dev applies the right order but slips when multiplying, using 5 instead of 6 for 2 × 3, so the final step becomes 6 + 5 = 11.
- (a) −15 °C — Method: the lowest temperature is the reading furthest to the left on a number line, and among negative readings that is the one furthest below zero. Working: the three negative readings are 1 degree, 7 degrees and 15 degrees below zero, and 0 °C is not below zero at all. Fifteen degrees below zero is the furthest below. Answer: −15 °C. The distractors: −1 °C comes from ordering the negatives by the size of their digits, so that the smallest digit is taken as the lowest temperature; −7 °C comes from comparing 15 and 7 by their leading digits, deciding that 1 is less than 7 and so that −7 lies below −15; 0 °C comes from treating zero as the smallest number there is.
- (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.
- (a) = — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so both numbers are in the same form. Working: 3/10 means 3 divided by 10, which is 0.3. Answer: 3/10 = 0.3, so the symbol is =. < comes from treating the fraction as smaller than the decimal without converting it first. > comes from the same mistake the other way round. ≠ comes from assuming a fraction and a decimal can never be equal.
- (a) £600 — Method: round the number of cakes and the price of each cake to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 187 rounds to 200, and £2.95 rounds to £3 (the digit after the first, 9, rounds the 2 up to 3), so the estimate is 200 × £3 = £600. £400 comes from rounding £2.95 down to £2 instead of up to £3, giving 200 × £2 = £400. £561 comes from rounding only the price and using the exact number of cakes, 187 × £3 = £561. £570 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 as 190 instead of to 1 significant figure as 200, giving 190 × £3 = £570. Answer: £600.
- (d) 9 — List all the factors of 36 in pairs that multiply to give 36: 1 × 36, 2 × 18, 3 × 12, 4 × 9, and 6 × 6. This gives the factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 36 — nine factors in total, with 6 counted only once even though it appears in a pair with itself. Forgetting that 36 is itself a factor of 36 and leaving it off the list gives 8. Counting the number of factor pairs, five of them, rather than the number of individual factors gives 5. Treating the repeated pair 6 × 6 as two separate factors, 6 and 6 again, gives 10 instead of 9. So 36 has 9 factors.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.