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) 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) 1.45 ≤ m < 1.55 — The flour's mass is labelled 1.5 kg, correct to the nearest 0.1 kg, so half of 0.1 kg is added to and subtracted from 1.5 kg to find the interval: 1.5 − 0.05 = 1.45 and 1.5 + 0.05 = 1.55, giving 1.45 ≤ m < 1.55. '1.4 ≤ m < 1.6' comes from taking the whole 0.1 kg as the margin either side, instead of half of it. '1.45 < m ≤ 1.55' comes from writing the inequality signs the wrong way round — the lower bound should be included and the upper bound excluded, not the other way round. '1.45 ≤ m ≤ 1.55' comes from including the upper bound, when the convention is that the upper bound is never actually reached.
- (d) 6 × 10⁷ — 3 × 2 = 6, and 2 + 5 = 7, so (3 × 10²) × (2 × 10⁵) = 6 × 10⁷. Multiplying the exponents instead of adding them gives 2 × 5 = 10, so 6 × 10¹⁰. Adding the coefficients instead of multiplying them gives 3 + 2 = 5, so 5 × 10⁷. Subtracting the exponents instead of adding them gives 5 − 2 = 3, so 6 × 10³.
- (a) 7.2 × 10⁻⁴ — 0.00072 = 7.2 × 10⁻⁴, moving the decimal point 4 places to the right to reach 7.2, so the exponent is negative. Writing 7.2 × 10⁴ uses a positive exponent, which would give a number far larger than 1, not a small decimal. Writing 7.2 × 10⁻⁵ moves the point one place too many. Writing 0.72 × 10⁻³ leaves the coefficient below 1, which standard form does not allow.
- (c) 4 × 10⁴ — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, and 6 − 2 = 4, so each project receives 4 × 10⁴ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 × 2 = 12, so 4 × 10¹². Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 + 2 = 8, so 4 × 10⁸. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 8 − 2 = 6, so 6 × 10⁴.
- (c) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
- (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.
- (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) 36 — Method: set the outcomes out in a grid with one die along the top and the other down the side, so that every cell of the grid is one outcome, and count the cells. Working: the red die can land in 6 ways, so the grid has 6 columns, and the blue die can also land in 6 ways, so the grid has 6 rows; the number of cells is 6 × 6 = 36. Answer: 36. The distractors: 12 comes from adding 6 and 6 instead of multiplying them; 6 comes from counting the outcomes of a single die and forgetting that the second die also has to land; 21 comes from treating the two dice as indistinguishable, so that a red 2 with a blue 3 and a red 3 with a blue 2 are counted as one outcome.
- (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.
- (a) 187.5 g — Method: the smallest possible actual mass is half the rounding unit below the given value. Working: half of 25 g is 12.5 g, so the smallest possible mass is 200 − 12.5 = 187.5 g. Answer: 187.5 g. (175 g comes from subtracting the whole rounding unit, 25, instead of half of it. 200 g comes from giving the rounded value itself rather than the lower bound. 212.5 g comes from adding the half unit instead of subtracting it, giving the upper bound.)
- (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) 7.5 × 10⁴ — Standard form is A × 10ⁿ, where A is between 1 and 10 (1 ≤ A < 10) and n is an integer — 7.5 × 10⁴ satisfies all of this. 12 × 10³ fails because 12 is not below 10. 0.5 × 10⁴ fails because 0.5 is not at least 1. 6.2 × 4⁵ fails because standard form always uses a power of 10, not a power of 4.
- (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.
- (d) 0.024 cm — Method: significant figures are counted from the first non-zero digit; the zeros in front of it only fix the place value and are not significant. Working: in 0.02384 the first significant figure is 2 and the second is 3, so the rounding is decided by the next digit, 8. As 8 is 5 or more, the second significant figure goes up from 3 to 4, in the same place value. Answer: 0.024 cm. The distractors: 0.023 cm comes from chopping the 84 off instead of rounding it; 0.02 cm comes from counting the leading zeros as significant figures, so the 2 is taken as the second figure and the rounding stops there; 0.0238 cm is 0.02384 correct to 3 significant figures, one figure too many.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.