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.
- (c) 2000 mm — Put both lengths into the same unit first. There are 1000 mm in a metre, so the ribbon is 2.4 × 1000 = 2400 mm, and there are 10 mm in a centimetre, so the piece cut off is 40 × 10 = 400 mm. The length left is 2400 − 400 = 2000 mm. 2360 mm subtracts 40 mm instead of 400 mm, 200 mm works in centimetres and then labels the result as millimetres, and 2800 mm adds the piece that was cut off instead of subtracting it.
- (d) 9 — Method: split into two cases — the soups with no restriction, and the mushroom soup on its own — then add the totals. Working: the 2 soups other than mushroom can be paired with any of the 4 sandwiches: 2 × 4 = 8. The mushroom soup can only be paired with the cheese sandwich: 1 combination. Total = 8 + 1 = 9. Answer: 9. 12 comes from working out 3 × 4 = 12 without applying the restriction at all. 8 comes from correctly finding the 2 unrestricted soups' 8 combinations, but forgetting to add back the 1 allowed mushroom-and-cheese combination. 11 comes from taking the unrestricted total of 12 and removing only 1 mushroom combination instead of all 3 disallowed ones.
- (c) £70 — Method: 20% of an amount is 20/100 of it; a reliable route is to find 10% by dividing by 10 and then double it. Working: 10% of £350 is £350 ÷ 10 = £35, and 20% is twice as much, £35 × 2 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £35 comes from finding 10% and stopping there; £17.50 comes from reading 20% as one twentieth and working out £350 ÷ 20 = £17.50; £280 comes from taking 20% off the money raised rather than finding 20% of it, giving £350 ÷ 5 = £70 and then £350 − £70 = £280.
- (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.
- (d) £120 — Total parts = 5 + 3 = 8, so one part is worth 320 ÷ 8 = 40 pounds. The cake sale is 3 parts, so it raised 3 × 40 = 120 pounds. £200 comes from working out the raffle's share, 5 × 40, instead of the cake sale's share. £40 comes from finding the value of one part but forgetting to multiply by 3. £192 comes from dividing the total by 5 instead of 8 to find the value of one part, 320 ÷ 5 = 64, then multiplying by 3, 3 × 64 = 192.
- (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.
- (d) 10 — Method: list the pairs systematically, taking each sweet in turn and pairing it only with the sweets that come after it, so that no pair is written down twice. Working: numbering the sweets 1 to 5, the first sweet pairs with 4 others, the second pairs with 3 sweets that come after it, the third with 2 and the fourth with 1, so the total is 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 20 comes from working out 5 × 4 and never halving, which counts each pair twice, once in each order; 25 comes from working out 5 × 5, which allows the same sweet to be chosen twice; 9 comes from adding the 5 choices and the 4 remaining choices instead of combining them as a selection of two.
- (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.
- (b) 30 — Method: 12% of an amount is 12/100 of it, so find 1% by dividing by 100 and then multiply by 12. Working: 1% of 250 is 250 ÷ 100 = 2.5, and 12% is 2.5 × 12 = 30. Answer: 30 seats. The distractors: 3 comes from writing 12% as 0.012 instead of 0.12, giving 0.012 × 250 = 3; 25 comes from finding 10% of the seats and stopping there; 24 comes from counting 12 seats for each whole hundred, 12 + 12 = 24, and ignoring the remaining 50 seats.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (d) £20 — 1% of £250 = £2.50, so 8% = 8 × £2.50 = £20. A candidate who misplaces the decimal point and finds 0.8% instead gets £2. A candidate who confuses 8% with 80% gets £200. A candidate who rounds 8% up to the nearby 10% gets £25.
- (a) 3.8 × 10⁻³ — 0.0038 is less than 1, so the power of 10 is negative. Moving the decimal point 3 places gives A = 3.8, so 0.0038 = 3.8 × 10⁻³. A candidate who wrote 3.8 × 10³ used a positive power, which is only correct for numbers of 10 or more. A candidate who wrote 38 × 10⁻⁴ used a value of A outside the required range. A candidate who wrote 3.8 × 10⁻⁴ counted one place too many when moving the decimal point.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.