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.To estimate the cost of buying 38.7 m of rope at £21.40 per metre, both numbers are first rounded to 1 significant figure. Work out the estimate.
- 2.In a school long jump competition Priya's jump is recorded as 3.8 m and Nadia's jump is recorded as 3.9 m, each correct to the nearest 0.1 m. Priya says she may have jumped further than Nadia. Decide whether Priya is right, and give a reason for your answer.
- 3.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.
- 4.A quantity surveyor calculates a length as 24.6851 m. Round this length to 2 decimal places.
- 5.Insert one pair of brackets into 2 + 3 × 5 − 1 so that the calculation is equal to 24. Which calculation is correct?
- 6.Write 45,000 in standard form.
- 7.In a science experiment, the temperature of a liquid is recorded as 18.6 °C, correct to the nearest 0.2 °C. Write down the error interval for the actual temperature, T °C.
- 8.Round 592.5 to the nearest 10.
- 9.Write these decimals in order, starting with the smallest: 0.6, 0.55, 0.601, 0.5, 0.56
- 10.Work out (3 × 5)²
- 11.Simplify (y³)⁴, giving your answer as a single power of y.
- 12.Rice is sold in a 400 g bag for £1.12 and in a 1.5 kg bag for £3.90. Work out how much less the rice in the larger bag costs per kilogram.
- 13.Work out the value of 5³.
- 14.Work out (5 × 10⁴) ÷ (2 × 10⁻²). Give your answer in standard form.
- 15.Work out the value of .
Answer key
- (d) £800 — Rounding 38.7 to 1 significant figure gives 40, and rounding 21.40 to 1 significant figure gives 20. Multiplying the rounded values gives an estimate of 40 × 20 = £800. Rounding 21.40 to the nearest whole number instead of to 1 significant figure gives 21, and 40 × 21 = £840, one place value too fine for the price. Adding the rounded values instead of multiplying them gives 40 + 20 = £60. Rounding both numbers to 2 significant figures instead of 1, giving 39 and 21, produces 39 × 21 = £819.
- (b) No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap — Method: each recorded jump stands for the lengths within half of 0.1 m, that is 0.05 m, of the figure recorded, and Priya is right only if the two ranges overlap. Working: Priya's jump is at least 3.8 − 0.05 = 3.75 m and below 3.85 m, because a jump of 3.85 m would have been recorded as 3.9 m; Nadia's jump is at least 3.85 m and below 3.9 + 0.05 = 3.95 m. Every length Priya could have jumped is below 3.85 m and every length Nadia could have jumped is at least 3.85 m, so Nadia jumped further whatever the exact lengths were. Answer: No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap. The distractors: the reason that a recorded jump is exactly the length jumped reaches the same verdict by treating a rounded record as exact, which is the idea this question tests; both jumps being 3.85 m would put 3.85 m inside Priya's range, when a jump of that length is recorded as 3.9 m; Priya jumping up to 3.9 m goes a whole 0.1 m above her record instead of half of it.
- (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.
- (d) 24.69 — To round to 2 decimal places, look only at the third decimal digit to decide whether the second decimal digit rounds up. In 24.6851 the third decimal digit is 5, and since 5 is 5 or more, the second decimal digit rounds up from 8 to 9, giving 24.69. Rounding to 1 decimal place instead of 2 gives 24.7, one place value too coarse. Keeping the third decimal digit rather than dropping it gives 24.685, which is 3 decimal places. Looking at the fourth decimal digit, 1, instead of the third one, and wrongly deciding that no rounding is needed, leaves the length unrounded at 24.68.
- (b) (2 + 3) × 5 − 1 — 2 + 3 = 5, then 5 × 5 = 25, then 25 − 1 = 24, so the brackets belong around 2 + 3. Placing them around 5 − 1 instead gives 5 − 1 = 4, then 3 × 4 = 12, then 2 + 12 = 14. Leaving the multiplication bracketed instead changes nothing, because it already had priority: 3 × 5 = 15, then 2 + 15 = 17, then 17 − 1 = 16. Bracketing both 2 + 3 and 5 − 1 uses two pairs instead of the one asked for: 2 + 3 = 5, 5 − 1 = 4, then 5 × 4 = 20.
- (a) 4.5 × 10⁴ — 45,000 = 4.5 × 10,000 = 4.5 × 10⁴, with the coefficient between 1 and 10 as standard form requires. Writing 45 × 10³ keeps the coefficient too large — 45 is not between 1 and 10. Writing 4.5 × 10³ undercounts the places moved, giving only 4,500. Writing 4.5 × 10⁵ overcounts the places moved, giving 450,000.
- (b) 18.5 ≤ T < 18.7 — Method: the error interval reaches half the rounding unit either side of the recorded value. Working: half of 0.2 is 0.1, so the interval runs from 18.6 − 0.1 to 18.6 + 0.1. Answer: 18.5 ≤ T < 18.7. (18.4 ≤ T < 18.8 comes from using the full rounding unit, 0.2, either side instead of half of it. 18.5 ≤ T ≤ 18.7 comes from including the upper bound with ≤ instead of excluding it with <. 18.6 ≤ T < 18.8 comes from treating the recorded value as the start of the interval and adding the whole rounding unit, 0.2, above it.)
- (c) 590 — To round to the nearest 10, decide which multiple of 10 the number is nearer to. 592.5 lies between 590 and 600. It is 592.5 − 590 = 2.5 above 590, but 600 − 592.5 = 7.5 below 600, so it is much nearer to 590. Equivalently, the units digit is 2, and 2 is less than 5, so round down: 592.5 rounds to 590. A candidate who wrote 600 rounded up because of the 5 in the tenths place, but that digit decides rounding to the nearest whole number, not to the nearest 10 — the units digit is what matters here. A candidate who wrote 595 rounded to the nearest 5 instead of the nearest 10. A candidate who wrote 500 cut the number down to its hundreds digit instead of rounding to the nearest 10.
- (a) 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601 — Compare the decimals by giving them all the same number of decimal places first: 0.600, 0.550, 0.601, 0.500, 0.560. Ordering these from smallest to largest gives 0.500, 0.550, 0.560, 0.600, 0.601, which is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601. Comparing the digits as though they were whole numbers, reading 0.601 as "601" and 0.5 as "5", without padding to the same number of decimal places, gives the wrong order 0.5, 0.6, 0.55, 0.56, 0.601, because it ignores the place value of each digit. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 0.601, 0.6, 0.56, 0.55, 0.5. Misreading the close values 0.55 and 0.56 and swapping them gives 0.5, 0.56, 0.55, 0.6, 0.601. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601.
- (a) 225 — Method: brackets are worked out before powers, so multiply the two numbers first and then square the result. Working: 3 × 5 = 15, and 15² = 15 × 15 = 225. Answer: 225. The distractors: 30 comes from doubling 15 instead of squaring it; 75 comes from squaring only the 5 and then working out 3 × 25; 34 comes from squaring each number separately and adding, 9 + 25, instead of multiplying inside the brackets first.
- (a) y¹² — Method: when a power is raised to another power, multiply the two indices. Working: (y³)⁴ means y³ × y³ × y³ × y³, which is four lots of three y's multiplied together, so the index is 3 × 4 = 12 and (y³)⁴ = y¹². y⁷ comes from adding the indices, 3 + 4 = 7, which is the rule for multiplying two separate powers, not for raising a power to a power. y⁸¹ comes from working out 3⁴ = 81 and using that as the index, raising the inner index to the outer power instead of multiplying the two indices. 12y comes from multiplying the indices to make 12 but then treating y as a coefficient instead of a power. Answer: y¹².
- (c) 20p — Turn each price into the same rate before comparing. The small bag is 400 g = 0.4 kg, so it costs £1.12 ÷ 0.4 = £2.80 per kg. The large bag costs £3.90 ÷ 1.5 = £2.60 per kg. The saving is £2.80 − £2.60 = £0.20, which is 20p per kg. 2p compares the prices per 100 g rather than per kilogram, £2.78 subtracts one bag price from the other without turning either into a rate, and £2.60 is the large bag's price per kilogram rather than the saving.
- (c) 125 — Method: a number cubed means multiplying the number by itself three times. Working: 5 × 5 × 5 = 125. 15 comes from working out 5 × 3 = 15, multiplying by the index instead of cubing. 8 comes from working out 5 + 3 = 8 instead of cubing. 53 comes from writing the base and the index next to each other instead of carrying out the calculation. Answer: 125.
- (c) 2.5 × 10⁶ — Divide the A values: 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5. Subtract the powers of 10: 4 − (−2) = 4 + 2 = 6. So the answer is 2.5 × 10⁶. A candidate who worked out 4 − 2 = 2, treating the subtraction of a negative as an ordinary subtraction, wrote 2.5 × 10². A candidate who subtracted in the wrong order, −2 − 4 = −6, wrote 2.5 × 10⁻⁶. A candidate who multiplied the A values instead of dividing, 5 × 2 = 10, and added the powers, 4 + (−2) = 2, then rewrote 10 × 10² in standard form as 1 × 10³.
- (c) 0.001 — Method: a negative index means 'one over' the positive power, so $10^{-3}$ means one over $10^{3}$. Working: ten cubed is 1000, and one over 1000 is 0.001. 1000 comes from ignoring the negative sign and working out ten cubed instead of its reciprocal. −1000 comes from ignoring what the negative index does to the size, while still writing a negative sign on the large value. −0.001 comes from correctly finding the size, 0.001, but wrongly keeping a negative sign because the index was negative. Answer: 0.001.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.