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
- (c) 3.05 kg — There are 1000 g in 1 kg, so 450 g = 450 ÷ 1000 = 0.45 kg. The total mass is 0.45 + 2.6 = 3.05 kg. 7.1 kg divides the grams by 100 instead of 1000, 2.645 kg divides them by 10 000, and 452.6 kg adds the two numbers without converting the grams at all.
- (c) 2.6 × 10⁵ — In standard form, A must satisfy 1 ≤ A < 10. Moving the decimal point in 260,000 to just after the 2 gives A = 2.6, and the decimal point moved 5 places, so 260,000 = 2.6 × 10⁵. A candidate who wrote 26 × 10⁴ used a value of A outside the required range, even though it has the same overall value. A candidate who wrote 2.6 × 10⁶ counted one place too many when moving the decimal point. A candidate who wrote 0.26 × 10⁶ used a value of A below 1, again outside the required range.
- (c) 11 — Method: work out the total number of combinations as if there were no restriction, then subtract the one combination that is not allowed. Working: without any restriction there are 4 backdrops × 3 outfits = 12 combinations. The grey backdrop with the formal suit is not allowed, removing 1 combination: 12 − 1 = 11. Answer: 11. 12 comes from forgetting to remove the combination that is not allowed. 8 comes from removing the entire formal suit outfit from the count instead of just the one combination with the grey backdrop. 10 comes from removing two combinations instead of just the one that is not allowed.
- (c) 4.1 × 10³, 3.2 × 10⁴, 2.9 × 10⁵ — The exponent decides the size first: 10³ is smaller than 10⁴, which is smaller than 10⁵, so the order is 4.1 × 10³, then 3.2 × 10⁴, then 2.9 × 10⁵. Reversing the whole list gives largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. Comparing 3.2 × 10⁴ and 4.1 × 10³ by their coefficients alone, 3.2 against 4.1, and swapping them ignores that 10⁴ is bigger than 10³ regardless of the coefficient. Comparing 2.9 × 10⁵ and 3.2 × 10⁴ by their coefficients alone and swapping them makes the same mistake at the top of the list.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 5/8 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.625 = 625/1000 = 5/8 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 125). Answer: 5/8. 25/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 31/50 comes from rounding 0.625 to 0.62 before converting. 8/5 comes from simplifying correctly to 5/8 and then writing the fraction upside down.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 8,350 — Rounding to the nearest 100 means the true number can be up to half of 100, which is 50, below the recorded figure before it would round down to a lower hundred. The smallest possible number is therefore 8,400 − 50 = 8,350. Adding 50 instead of subtracting it gives 8,450, which is the upper end of the interval rather than the smallest value, and 8,450 is not itself possible because it would round up to 8,500. Subtracting a whole 100 instead of half of it gives 8,300, going too far below the recorded value. Subtracting 10 instead of half of the rounding unit gives 8,390, treating the rounding unit as 100 but the tolerance as only 10.
- (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.
- (b) 78 hours — From 10:00 on Monday to 10:00 on Thursday is exactly 3 complete days, which is 3 × 24 = 72 hours. From 10:00 to 16:00 on the Thursday is a further 6 hours, giving a total of 72 + 6 = 78 hours. Counting Monday to Thursday as 4 full calendar days instead of 3 complete 24-hour periods gives 4 × 24 = 96 hours. Undercounting the number of complete days as 2 instead of 3 gives 2 × 24 + 6 = 54 hours. Subtracting the extra 6 hours instead of adding them to the 3 complete days gives 72 − 6 = 66 hours.
- (b) 3.65 ≤ n < 3.75 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means n can be up to half of one decimal place, 0.05, below or above 3.7 before it would round to a different value. This gives a lower bound of 3.7 − 0.05 = 3.65 and an upper bound of 3.7 + 0.05 = 3.75. A value exactly at 3.75 would round up to 3.8, not 3.7, so the upper bound is excluded while the lower bound, 3.65, does still round to 3.7. Writing 3.65 ≤ n ≤ 3.75 wrongly includes 3.75. Writing 3.6 ≤ n < 3.8 uses a whole decimal place, 0.1, either side instead of half of one, 0.05. Writing 3.65 < n < 3.75 wrongly excludes 3.65, which does round to 3.7.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.