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.
Number worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- 1.A spreadsheet shows that 812 − 397 = 315. Work out an estimate for 812 − 397, by rounding each number to the nearest 100, to check whether the spreadsheet's answer is reasonable.
- 2.A number, x, is truncated (not rounded) to 1 decimal place and the result is 6.2. Write down the error interval for x.
- 3.Work out (4 × 10³) × (3 × 10¹). Give your answer in standard form.
- 4.Grace works out 7 × 99 by writing 99 as 100 − 1. Use her method to work out 7 × 99.
- 5.Work out 3.7 × 24.
- 6.A number, n, is a multiple of both 6 and 9. Work out the smallest possible value of n that is greater than 20.
- 7.£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.
- 8.Work out (−2)² − 3
- 9.Work out 2 × 3 × 5 + 1 and decide whether the result is a prime number.
- 10.A bag of flour is labelled 1.5 kg, correct to the nearest 0.1 kg. The true mass of the flour is m kg. Which inequality gives all the possible values of m?
- 11.Work out 250 ÷ 1000.
- 12.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.
- 13.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.
- 14.A charity shop buys a coat for £24 and sells it for a profit that is 3/8 of the buying price. Work out the selling price.
- 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
- (b) 400 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 812 rounds to 800 (nearest 100) and 397 rounds to 400 (nearest 100). 800 − 400 = 400. Answer: 400. 500 comes from rounding 397 down to 300 instead of up to the nearest 100, 400. 300 comes from rounding 812 down to 700 instead of up to the nearest 100, 800. 415 is the exact value of 812 − 397, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate — the spreadsheet's answer of 315 is too far from the estimate of 400 to be correct.
- (b) 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3 — Truncating simply cuts off the digits after the required decimal place instead of rounding them, so every value from 6.2 up to (but not reaching) 6.3 truncates to 6.2. This gives the error interval 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3, with no allowance made on the lower side because truncation never rounds a smaller value up into this interval. Using 6.15 ≤ x < 6.25 applies the rounding rule of going half a unit either side, which does not apply to truncation. Writing 6.1 < x ≤ 6.2 puts the interval below 6.2 instead of above it. Writing 6.2 ≤ x ≤ 6.3 wrongly includes 6.3, which truncates down to itself, not to 6.2.
- (d) 1.2 × 10⁵ — 4 × 3 = 12, and 3 + 1 = 4, giving 12 × 10⁴ — but 12 is not between 1 and 10, so this must be rewritten as 1.2 × 10⁵. Stopping at 12 × 10⁴ without rewriting it leaves the coefficient out of range. Rewriting 12 as 1.2 but leaving the exponent at 4 instead of increasing it to 5 gives 1.2 × 10⁴, which is ten times too small. Adding the coefficients instead of multiplying them gives 4 + 3 = 7, so 7 × 10⁴.
- (c) 693 — Method: multiplying a bracket by a number multiplies every term inside it, so 7 × (100 − 1) = 7 × 100 − 7 × 1. Working: 7 × 100 = 700 and 7 × 1 = 7, so the calculation becomes 700 − 7 = 693. Answer: 693. The distractors: 699 comes from subtracting the 1 itself rather than 7 lots of it, giving 700 − 1 = 699; 707 comes from adding the second product instead of subtracting it, giving 700 + 7 = 707; 700 comes from rounding 99 up to 100 and then offering the estimate 7 × 100 as an exact value.
- (b) 88.8 — Multiply as whole numbers first, ignoring the decimal point: 37 × 24. Split it as 37 × 20 = 740 and 37 × 4 = 148, so 37 × 24 = 740 + 148 = 888. 3.7 has 1 decimal place and 24 has none, so the answer needs 1 decimal place: 88.8. Counting the 2 digits in "3.7" as though that were the number of decimal places gives 8.88 instead of 1 decimal place. Leaving the decimal point out altogether gives 888. Misreading 37 × 4 as 138 rather than 148 gives a running total of 878, placed with 1 decimal place as 87.8. So 3.7 × 24 = 88.8.
- (a) 36 — Method: find the lowest common multiple of 6 and 9, then move up the list of common multiples until one is greater than 20. Working: the common multiples of 6 and 9 are 18, 36, 54 …. 18 is not greater than 20, so the next one, 36, is the smallest value of n that is greater than 20. 18 is the lowest common multiple itself, but it fails the 'greater than 20' condition. 54 is the common multiple after 36, one step too far. 27 is a multiple of 9 but not of 6, since 27 ÷ 6 is not a whole number. Answer: 36.
- (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) 1 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index before the subtraction, and a negative number multiplied by itself gives a positive result. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, so the calculation becomes 4 − 3 = 1. Answer: 1. The distractors: −7 comes from squaring only the 2 and leaving the minus sign outside the index, giving −(2²) − 3 = −4 − 3 = −7; −1 comes from subtracting the square from 3 instead of 3 from the square, giving 3 − 4 = −1; 25 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the index, giving (−2 − 3)² = (−5)² = 25.
- (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.
- (b) 1.45 ≤ m < 1.55 — The flour's mass is labelled 1.5 kg, correct to the nearest 0.1 kg, so half of 0.1 kg is added to and subtracted from 1.5 kg to find the interval: 1.5 − 0.05 = 1.45 and 1.5 + 0.05 = 1.55, giving 1.45 ≤ m < 1.55. '1.4 ≤ m < 1.6' comes from taking the whole 0.1 kg as the margin either side, instead of half of it. '1.45 < m ≤ 1.55' comes from writing the inequality signs the wrong way round — the lower bound should be included and the upper bound excluded, not the other way round. '1.45 ≤ m ≤ 1.55' comes from including the upper bound, when the convention is that the upper bound is never actually reached.
- (d) 0.25 — Dividing by 1000 moves every digit three place-value columns, so 250 ÷ 1000 = 0.25. A candidate who divides by 100 instead of 1000 gets 2.5. A candidate who divides by 10,000 instead of 1000 gets 0.025. A candidate who divides by 10 instead of 1000 gets 25.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) £33.00 — The profit is 3/8 of £24 = (£24 ÷ 8) × 3 = £3 × 3 = £9.00. Selling price = £24 + £9.00 = £33.00. A candidate who gives the profit instead of the selling price gets £9.00. A candidate who subtracts the profit instead of adding it gets £24 − £9 = £15.00. A candidate who works out one eighth of £24 and adds that on, forgetting to multiply by the numerator 3, gets £24 + £3 = £27.00.
- (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.