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
- (b) Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g — Method: a mass shown to the nearest 10 g lies within half of 10 g, that is 5 g, of the figure on the display, so compare the smallest mass the bag can have with the checker's limit of 996 g. Working: 1,000 − 5 = 995, so the actual mass of the bag can be as low as 995 g, and 995 g is below the 996 g limit, so a bag showing 1,000 g on the machine can still be rejected. Answer: Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g. The distractors: 990 g comes from going a whole 10 g below the display instead of half of it; 999.5 g comes from treating the display as being to the nearest gram, when it is to the nearest 10 g; the claim that the mass is exactly 1,000 g treats a rounded display as an exact measurement.
- (a) 6 — Method: the two scoops sit in different places on the cone, so a cone is an ordered choice; the possibilities can be listed systematically or counted by multiplying the choices available at each stage. Working: there are 3 flavours for the bottom scoop, and once that flavour is used only 2 flavours remain for the top scoop, so there are 3 × 2 = 6 cones; listing them confirms this, since vanilla on the bottom allows mango or pistachio on top, mango on the bottom allows vanilla or pistachio, and pistachio on the bottom allows vanilla or mango. Answer: 6. The distractors: 3 comes from treating the two scoops as interchangeable, so that vanilla under mango and mango under vanilla are counted as one cone; 9 comes from allowing the same flavour to be used for both scoops, giving 3 × 3; 5 comes from adding the 3 choices for the bottom scoop to the 2 choices left for the top scoop instead of multiplying them.
- (c) 12.3 ≤ t < 12.4 — Method: truncating cuts the later digits off instead of rounding them, so nothing is ever pushed upwards. The displayed value is therefore the smallest the time can be, and the time can run up to, but not reach, the next value the display can show. Working: the display reads 12.3, so the actual time is at least 12.3 seconds; as soon as the time reaches 12.3 + 0.1 = 12.4 seconds the display would read 12.4, so 12.4 is not included. Answer: 12.3 ≤ t < 12.4. The distractors: 12.25 ≤ t < 12.35 is the interval for a time rounded to 1 decimal place, and this display does not round; 12.3 < t ≤ 12.4 excludes the one value the display certainly allows and includes the one it rules out; 12.3 ≤ t ≤ 12.4 treats 12.4 seconds as possible, but at 12.4 seconds the display would no longer read 12.3.
- (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
- (c) 2.00 kg — Convert the tin's mass to kilograms first: 650 g = 0.65 kg. Adding this to the bag's mass gives 0.65 + 1.35 = 2.00 kg. Converting 650 g to kilograms by dividing by 100 instead of 1000 gives 6.5 kg, and adding this to 1.35 kg gives 7.85 kg. Adding the two masses without converting grams to kilograms at all — treating 650 as if it were already measured in kilograms — gives 651.35 kg. Subtracting the tin's mass from the bag's mass instead of adding the two together, 1.35 − 0.65, gives 0.70 kg.
- (b) £13.48 — Method: an amount of money is written to the nearest penny, which is 2 decimal places, so the calculator display has to be rounded to 2 decimal places. Working: 53.90 ÷ 4 = 13.475, and the digit in the third decimal place is 5, so the penny digit goes up from 7 to 8. Answer: £13.48. The distractors: £13.47 comes from chopping the third decimal place off instead of rounding with it; £13.50 comes from rounding to the nearest 10p rather than to the nearest penny; £13.40 comes from cutting the display short at 1 decimal place, which is both the wrong degree of accuracy and a truncation rather than a rounding.
- (b) 23 kg — Method: the rounded value sits exactly in the middle of the error interval. Working: the interval 22.5 ≤ m < 23.5 stretches 0.5 either side of the rounded value, so the rounded value is 23. Answer: 23 kg. (22 kg comes from rounding the lower bound down instead of finding the middle of the interval. 22.5 kg comes from giving the lower bound itself rather than the rounded value. 23.5 kg comes from giving the upper bound itself rather than the rounded value.)
- (b) 235 ≤ n < 245 — Method: the error interval stretches half the rounding unit either side of the rounded value, with the upper bound excluded because it would round up to the next value. Working: half of 10 is 5, so the interval runs from 240 − 5 to 240 + 5. Answer: 235 ≤ n < 245. (230 ≤ n < 250 comes from using the whole rounding unit, 10, either side instead of half of it. 235 ≤ n ≤ 245 comes from including the upper bound with ≤ instead of excluding it with <. 239.5 ≤ n < 240.5 comes from rounding to the nearest whole number instead of the nearest 10, so half of 1 is used in place of half of 10.)
- (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.
- (a) 33.5 mph — Method: the smallest possible actual value is half the rounding unit below the given value. Working: half of 1 mph is 0.5 mph, so the smallest possible speed is 34 − 0.5 = 33.5 mph. Answer: 33.5 mph. (33 mph comes from subtracting the whole rounding unit, 1, instead of half of it. 34 mph comes from giving the rounded value itself rather than the lower bound. 34.5 mph comes from adding the half unit instead of subtracting it, giving the upper bound.)
- (a) 3.84 × 10⁵ — 384,000 = 3.84 × 100,000 = 3.84 × 10⁵, with the decimal point moved five places and the coefficient kept between 1 and 10. Moving the point six places instead of five gives 3.84 × 10⁶, ten times too large. Leaving the coefficient as 38.4 gives 38.4 × 10⁴, which is not between 1 and 10. Using a negative exponent instead of a positive one gives 3.84 × 10⁻⁵, a number far smaller than 1.
- (d) 27/80 — Method: write the total as a fraction of a litre, then divide by the number of glasses. Working: 1.35 = 27/20, so each glass holds 27/20 ÷ 4 = 27/80 of a litre. Answer: 27/80. 27/20 comes from converting the total correctly to a fraction but forgetting to divide by the number of glasses. 27/5 comes from multiplying the total by 4 instead of dividing. 17/50 comes from rounding 1.35 ÷ 4 to 0.34 before converting to a fraction.
- (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.