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) 60 mph — Average speed = distance ÷ time, with the time measured in hours. 45 minutes is 45/60 of an hour, which is 0.75 of an hour, so the journey takes 1.75 hours. Speed = 105 ÷ 1.75 = 60 mph. 52.5 mph rounds the time up to 2 hours, 72.4 mph writes 1 hour 45 minutes as 1.45 hours, and 183.75 mph multiplies the distance by the time instead of dividing.
- (c) 22 — Without restriction there are 6 × 4 = 24 combinations. Two specific combinations are not available, so subtract 2: 24 − 2 = 22. 24 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 23 comes from subtracting only 1 of the 2 excluded combinations. 18 comes from removing the whole sport trim level, 6 × 3 = 18, instead of removing just the two excluded combinations.
- (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.
- (a) £600 — Method: round the number of cakes and the price of each cake to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 187 rounds to 200, and £2.95 rounds to £3 (the digit after the first, 9, rounds the 2 up to 3), so the estimate is 200 × £3 = £600. £400 comes from rounding £2.95 down to £2 instead of up to £3, giving 200 × £2 = £400. £561 comes from rounding only the price and using the exact number of cakes, 187 × £3 = £561. £570 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 as 190 instead of to 1 significant figure as 200, giving 190 × £3 = £570. Answer: £600.
- (a) 3.84 × 10⁵ — 384,000 = 3.84 × 100,000 = 3.84 × 10⁵, with the decimal point moved five places and the coefficient kept between 1 and 10. Moving the point six places instead of five gives 3.84 × 10⁶, ten times too large. Leaving the coefficient as 38.4 gives 38.4 × 10⁴, which is not between 1 and 10. Using a negative exponent instead of a positive one gives 3.84 × 10⁻⁵, a number far smaller than 1.
- (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) £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) 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.
- (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) 25 cm — Method: for a cube, the edge length is the cube root of the volume. Working: 25 × 25 × 25 = 15,625, so the edge length is 25 cm. 5 cm comes from cube-rooting 125 instead of 15,625, misreading the number of digits. 50 cm comes from working out 25 × 2 = 50, doubling the correct edge length. 125 cm comes from taking the square root of the volume instead of the cube root, since 125 × 125 = 15,625 — that would be the side of a SQUARE of area 15,625, not the edge of a cube of that volume. Answer: 25 cm.
- (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) £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.
- (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.
- (c) £47.00 — First apply the 20% reduction: £65 × 0.8 = £52.00. Then take off the further £5: £52.00 − £5 = £47.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £65 − £20 − £5, gives £40.00. Applying the 20% reduction correctly but forgetting to take off the extra £5 leaves £52.00. Taking off the £5 first and then applying the 20% reduction to the smaller amount, (£65 − £5) × 0.8, gives £48.00.
- (a) −4.5 °C — Order the temperatures by their actual value on a number line, remembering that a more negative number is further below zero and therefore colder: −4.5 °C is the coldest, since it is further below zero than −4.05 °C, −3.8 °C or 2 °C. Comparing the digits 405 and 45 as though the decimal points lined up, without padding −4.5 to match the number of decimal places in −4.05 first, makes −4.05 °C look like it has the bigger size, so it gets picked as the coldest by mistake — in fact −4.05 °C is closer to zero than −4.5 °C, not further from it. Picking −3.8 °C comes from choosing the negative reading with the smallest absolute value, forgetting that for negative numbers, a smaller absolute value means a warmer, less negative temperature, not a colder one. Picking 2 °C comes from ignoring the negative signs on the other three readings altogether and comparing raw digit sizes, when in fact any negative temperature is colder than any positive temperature. So the coldest temperature is −4.5 °C.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.