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) 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) 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) 16:25 — Add the whole hour first: 14:35 plus 1 hour is 15:35. Then add the 50 minutes. From 15:35, 25 minutes reaches 16:00 and the remaining 25 minutes gives 16:25. 15:85 adds 35 and 50 to get 85 minutes and never exchanges 60 of them for an hour, 16:05 treats 1 hour 50 minutes as 1.5 hours, and 12:45 subtracts the journey time instead of adding it.
- (a) 4,000 nanometres — Method: the number of nanometres is the diameter divided by the length of one nanometre, and dividing powers of ten means subtracting the indices. Working: −6 − (−9) = 3, so 10⁻⁶ ÷ 10⁻⁹ = 10³, and the diameter is 4 × 10³ nanometres. Answer: 4,000 nanometres. The distractors: 400 nanometres comes from taking the difference between the indices as 2 instead of 3; 4 nanometres comes from changing the name of the unit without converting, leaving the coefficient untouched; 0.004 nanometres comes from dividing by 10³ instead of multiplying by it, as though a nanometre were the larger of the two units.
- (b) £45.90 — The cost is 18 × £3.45 = £62.10. Profit = £108 − £62.10 = £45.90. A candidate who does not borrow in the tenths column, doing 1 − 0 = 1 instead of borrowing to make 10 − 1 = 9 and so leaving the units as 8 − 2 = 6, gets £46.10. A candidate who adds the cost to the selling price instead of subtracting gets £108 + £62.10 = £170.10. A candidate who gives the cost instead of the profit gets £62.10.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 245 ≤ m < 255 — Method: a mass given to the nearest 10 g lies within half of 10 g, that is 5 g, of the figure written down. The lower limit is included because it rounds up to that figure, and the upper limit is excluded because it rounds up to the next multiple of 10. Working: 250 − 5 = 245 and 250 + 5 = 255, and a mass of 245 g rounds to 250 g while a mass of 255 g rounds to 260 g. Answer: 245 ≤ m < 255. The distractors: 240 ≤ m < 260 goes a whole 10 g either side instead of half of it; 245 < m ≤ 255 has the two limits the wrong way round; 240 ≤ m < 250 treats the stated 250 g as the largest mass possible, as though rounding were always upwards.
- (d) 360 km — Method: first find the kilometres per litre by dividing distance by fuel used, then multiply this rate by the new tank size. Working: 180 ÷ 6 = 30 km per litre; 30 × 12 = 360 km. Answer: 360 km. 30 km comes from finding the correct fuel consumption but stopping there, without scaling it up to the full tank. 2160 km comes from multiplying the original distance (180) by the tank size (12) directly, skipping the unit rate. 90 km comes from pairing the numbers the wrong way round: dividing the distance by the new tank size, 180 ÷ 12 = 15, and then multiplying by the original 6 litres, 15 × 6 = 90.
- (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.
- (b) No, the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg — Method: find the upper bound of the true mass and compare it with the weight limit. Working: the display is correct to the nearest 5 kg, so half of 5 kg is 2.5 kg, and the true mass, m kg, satisfies 847.5 ≤ m < 852.5. Part of that interval lies above 850 kg, so the parcels are not definitely within the limit. Answer: the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg, which is above the limit. ("Yes, the display reads 850 kg, which is not above the limit" compares the limit with the displayed value instead of with the largest value the true mass could take. "Yes, the true mass is at least 847.5 kg and at most 850 kg" uses the correct half unit below but caps the interval at the limit instead of at 852.5 kg. "No, 850 kg on the display rounds up to 855 kg" wrongly treats the displayed value as if it rounds again.)
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 9π cm² — The area of a circle is π × r². With a radius of 3 cm this is π × 3² = 9π cm², and this is exact because π has not been replaced by any approximation. Writing 28.3 cm² replaces π with a rounded decimal value, 3.14, and then rounds the result again, so it is only an approximation. Writing 28.26 cm² uses π ≈ 3.14 without a final rounding step, but this is still only an approximation of 9π, not the exact value. Writing 27 cm² comes from replacing π with the rough approximation 3, which is even further from the true value.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.