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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) £300 — The increased price is 110% of the original, so the original price = £330 ÷ 1.1 = £300. A candidate who finds 10% of £330 and subtracts it, wrongly treating £330 as the original, gets £330 − £33 = £297. A candidate who adds 10% of £330 again instead of reversing the increase gets £330 + £33 = £363. A candidate who divides by 0.1 instead of 1.1 gets £3,300.
- (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.
- (b) 12 — Each of the 3 soups can be paired with each of the 4 bread rolls, so multiply: 3 × 4 = 12. 7 comes from adding the two numbers instead of multiplying them. 3 comes from using only the number of soups and ignoring the bread rolls. 4 comes from using only the number of bread rolls and ignoring the soups.
- (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) 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.
- (c) 4 × 10⁻¹ — Multiply the A values: 8 × 5 = 40. Add the powers of 10: −5 + 3 = −2, giving 40 × 10⁻². Since A must satisfy 1 ≤ A < 10, rewrite 40 as 4 × 10¹, so 40 × 10⁻² = 4 × 10¹ × 10⁻² = 4 × 10⁻¹. A candidate who stopped at 40 × 10⁻² did the index arithmetic correctly but left the answer outside standard form, since 40 is not between 1 and 10. A candidate who adjusted the A value to 4 correctly but then took the power of 10 by subtracting the two given powers, −5 − 3 = −8, wrote 4 × 10⁻⁸. A candidate who adjusted the A value to 4 but multiplied the two given powers, −5 × 3 = −15, wrote 4 × 10⁻¹⁵. Both of these forgot that multiplying in standard form means adding the powers.
- (c) £8.20 — Method: find the total cost, then subtract from the amount paid. Working: 35 × £1.48 = £51.80. Amount paid = 3 × £20 = £60.00. Change = £60.00 − £51.80 = £8.20. Answer: £8.20. (£58.52 comes from forgetting to multiply the price by the 35 litres and subtracting only £1.48 from £60. £7.50 comes from rounding £1.48 up to £1.50 before multiplying, giving a total of £52.50 instead of £51.80. £9.20 comes from miscarrying in the pence column when subtracting £51.80 from £60.00.)
- (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) £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.
- (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.
- (a) 4.5 × 10⁴ — 45,000 = 4.5 × 10,000 = 4.5 × 10⁴, with the coefficient between 1 and 10 as standard form requires. Writing 45 × 10³ keeps the coefficient too large — 45 is not between 1 and 10. Writing 4.5 × 10³ undercounts the places moved, giving only 4,500. Writing 4.5 × 10⁵ overcounts the places moved, giving 450,000.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.