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) 0.3, 32%, 7/20 — Method: convert every number to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale. Working: 7/20 = 0.35, 0.3 stays as 0.3, and 32% = 0.32. Comparing 0.3, 0.32 and 0.35 in size gives the order 0.3, then 0.32, then 0.35. Answer: 0.3, 32%, 7/20. 7/20, 32%, 0.3 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. 0.3, 7/20, 32% swaps 32% and 7/20, treating the fraction 7/20 as smaller even though 7/20 = 0.35 is bigger than 32% = 0.32. 32%, 0.3, 7/20 comes from moving the digits one place too far when converting the percentage, giving 0.032 instead of 0.32, which makes 32% look far smaller than it really is.
- (b) 63 — 10% of 180 = 18, so 5% = 9. 35% = (3 × 18) + 9 = 54 + 9 = 63. A candidate who uses 25% instead of 35% gets 45. A candidate who doubles 35% to get 70% by mistake gets 126. A candidate who subtracts 35 from 180 instead of finding a percentage gets 145.
- (a) 8 × 10³ — Method: divide the capacity of the card by the size of one photograph, dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices, then bring the coefficient back into the range 1 to 10. Working: 3.2 ÷ 4 = 0.8 and 10 − 6 = 4, which gives 0.8 × 10⁴; a coefficient of 0.8 is smaller than 1, so the decimal point moves one place to the right and the index falls by 1. Answer: 8 × 10³. The distractors: 8 × 10⁴ comes from correcting 0.8 to 8 without reducing the index, which makes the answer ten times too large; 1.28 × 10¹⁷ comes from multiplying the two numbers instead of dividing them, since 3.2 × 4 = 12.8 and 10 + 6 = 16; 8 × 10¹⁵ comes from dividing the coefficients but adding the indices instead of subtracting them.
- (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.
- (d) £143 — From 09:15 to 12:45 is 3 hours 30 minutes, which is 3.5 hours. The charge for the time is 3.5 × £28 = £98, and the call-out fee is added on once: £98 + £45 = £143. £98 leaves out the call-out fee altogether, £129 charges for 3 hours instead of 3.5 hours, and £255.50 adds the fee to the hourly rate before multiplying, which charges the £45 for every hour.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 30 kg — Round 0.485 kg to 1 significant figure: 0.5 kg. Multiply by the 60 cakes: 0.5 × 60 = 30 kg. A candidate who rounded to 2 significant figures instead of 1 used 0.49 kg, giving 0.49 × 60 = 29.4 kg. A candidate who used the unrounded amount instead of the estimate worked out 0.485 × 60 = 29.1 kg. A candidate who rounded 0.485 down to 0.4 kg instead of up to 0.5 kg worked out 0.4 × 60 = 24 kg.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (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) 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means the error interval spans half of 0.1, so 0.05, either side of 8.2: 8.2 − 0.05 = 8.15 and 8.2 + 0.05 = 8.25. The lower bound uses ≤ because 8.15 itself rounds to 8.2, but the upper bound uses < because 8.25 would round up to 8.3. So the error interval is 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25. A candidate who used the wrong rounding band gave 8.1 ≤ y < 8.2. A candidate who used a strict inequality at both ends wrote 8.15 < y < 8.25, wrongly excluding 8.15 itself. A candidate who added the full 0.1 instead of half of it wrote 8.2 ≤ y < 8.3.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.