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.
Calculator
Answer key: Number worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (d) 64 — Method: each time the power increases by 1, the value doubles, since one more 2 is multiplied in. Working: 2⁶ = 2⁵ × 2 = 32 × 2 = 64. Answer: 64. (37 comes from adding the power to the value, 32 + 5, instead of multiplying by the base. 192 comes from multiplying 32 by the new power, 6, instead of by the base, 2. 34 comes from adding the base to the value, 32 + 2, instead of multiplying.)
- (a) 1,850 — Method: find the error interval, then check which value falls outside it. Working: half of 100 is 50, so the actual number of visitors, v, satisfies 1,750 ≤ v < 1,850. 1,850 sits exactly on the excluded upper boundary, since a value of 1,850 would round to 1,900, not 1,800. Answer: 1,850. (1,750 is a genuine possible value — it sits at the included lower boundary. 1,799 is a genuine possible value, just below the upper boundary. 1,760 is a genuine possible value, well inside the interval.)
- (b) 3 — Method: list all valid two-digit numbers that can be made without starting with 0, then keep only the ones that are multiples of 5. Working: the two-digit numbers possible are 30, 35, 50 and 53. A number is a multiple of 5 only if it ends in 0 or 5: 30 ends in 0, 35 ends in 5, 50 ends in 0, but 53 ends in 3. So there are 3 multiples of 5. Answer: 3. 4 comes from including 53 as a multiple of 5 without checking that its last digit is not 0 or 5. 2 comes from leaving out 50, wrongly assuming 0 cannot be used as the second digit either. 6 comes from listing every two-digit arrangement of the three digits, including ones that start with 0, without applying either restriction.
- (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) £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.
- (c) 3 × 10⁶ — Daily revenue = (4 × 10³) × 2.5 = 1 × 10⁴ (£10,000). Multiplying by the number of days, (3 × 10²), gives annual revenue = (1 × 10⁴) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁶ (£3,000,000). A candidate who forgot to multiply by the price and just multiplied the number of items by the number of days worked out (4 × 10³) × (3 × 10²) = 1.2 × 10⁶. A candidate who added the number of days to the daily revenue instead of multiplying worked out 1 × 10⁴ + 3 × 10² = 1.03 × 10⁴. A candidate who misread £2.50 as £25 worked out a daily revenue of (4 × 10³) × 25 = 1 × 10⁵, giving an annual total of (1 × 10⁵) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁷.
- (c) £4.05 — The total cost is 7 × 85p = £5.95. Josh's change is £10.00 − £5.95 = £4.05. Taking off the pounds and then only the 5p digit, £10.00 − £5.00 = £5.00 followed by £5.00 − £0.05, ignoring the 90p altogether, gives £4.95. Rounding the cost up to £6.00 and never accounting for the extra 5p at all gives £4.00. Multiplying 7 × 85 incorrectly as 605 (a slip in 7 × 5) gives a total cost of £6.05, and correctly subtracting that from £10.00 gives £3.95.
- (c) 19 — Without any restriction there would be 5 × 4 = 20 different sandwiches. The restriction removes exactly one combination, cheese and mustard on gluten-free bread, so subtract 1: 20 − 1 = 19. 20 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 15 comes from removing the gluten-free bread altogether, as if none of the fillings were available on it, 5 × 3 = 15. 16 comes from removing the cheese and mustard filling completely, as if it were not available on any bread, 4 × 4 = 16.
- (c) 6 — Method: the first significant figure is the first non-zero digit; round using the digit after it to decide whether to round up or down. Working: the first significant figure of 6.283 is the 6; the next digit is 2, which rounds down, so 6.283 rounds to 6. 6.3 comes from rounding to 2 significant figures instead of 1. 10 comes from rounding up to the nearest 10 instead of finding 1 significant figure of the number itself. 0.6 comes from misplacing the decimal point after rounding. Answer: 6.
- (a) 0.55, 58%, 3/5 — Converting all three to decimals: 3/5 = 0.6, 0.55 stays as 0.55, and 58% = 0.58. In order from smallest to largest, this is 0.55, then 58%, then 3/5. Writing the numbers in the reverse order, largest to smallest, gives 3/5, 58%, 0.55. Misconverting 3/5 as 0.5 instead of 0.6 makes it appear smaller than both other values, giving the order 3/5, 0.55, 58%. Misconverting 58% as 0.058 instead of 0.58, by moving the decimal point two extra places, makes it appear smallest of the three, giving the order 58%, 0.55, 3/5.
- (a) 8.35 ≤ L < 8.45 — Method: a length rounded to 1 decimal place lies within half of 0.1 cm, that is 0.05 cm, of the value written down. The lower limit is included because it rounds up to that value, and the upper limit is excluded because it rounds up to the next value instead. Working: 8.4 − 0.05 = 8.35 and 8.4 + 0.05 = 8.45, so a length of 8.35 cm still rounds to 8.4 cm while a length of 8.45 cm rounds to 8.5 cm. Answer: 8.35 ≤ L < 8.45. The distractors: 8.3 ≤ L < 8.5 goes a whole 0.1 cm either side instead of half of it; 8.35 < L ≤ 8.45 has the two limits the wrong way round, excluding the length that does round to 8.4 cm and including the one that does not; 8.4 ≤ L < 8.5 is the interval for a length truncated to 1 decimal place, not one rounded to it.
- (d) £4.80 — Method: find the error interval, then check which value falls outside it. Working: half of 20p is 10p, so the actual cost, c, satisfies £4.50 ≤ c < £4.70. £4.80 is above £4.70, so it could not be the actual cost. Answer: £4.80. (£4.50 is a genuine possible cost — it sits at the included lower boundary. £4.65 is a genuine possible cost, below the £4.70 upper boundary. £4.55 is a genuine possible cost, well inside the interval.)
- (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.
- (a) 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6 — Convert all four fractions to a common denominator of 30: 2/3 is 20/30, 3/5 is 18/30, 5/6 is 25/30, and 1/2 is 15/30. Ordering by these numerators, smallest to largest, gives 15/30, 18/30, 20/30, 25/30, which is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6. Ordering by the size of the numerator in the original fractions, 1, 2, 3, 5, rather than converting to a common denominator, gives the wrong order 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/6, because it ignores that the denominators are different. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 5/6, 2/3, 3/5, 1/2. Using the rule "the bigger the denominator, the smaller the fraction" to place the last two, so that 5/6 is put below 2/3 because 6 is bigger than 3, gives 1/2, 3/5, 5/6, 2/3 — that rule only holds when the numerators are the same, and here 20/30 really is smaller than 25/30. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6.
- (b) 90 km/h — To convert metres per second to kilometres per hour, multiply by 3.6 (there are 3600 seconds in an hour and 1000 metres in a kilometre, and 3600 ÷ 1000 = 3.6): 25 × 3.6 = 90 km/h. Dividing by 3.6 instead of multiplying gives 25 ÷ 3.6 = 6.9 km/h (to 1 d.p.). Multiplying by 60 instead of 3.6, confusing the conversion from seconds to minutes with the conversion to hours, gives 25 × 60 = 1500 km/h. Multiplying by 3600 to convert seconds to hours but forgetting to convert metres to kilometres gives 25 × 3600 = 90000, which is a speed in metres per hour, not kilometres per hour.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.