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.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Number worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (b) −2 — Method: the multiplication is carried out before the addition, and a negative multiplied by a positive is negative. Working: (−3) × 4 = −12, so the calculation becomes −12 + 10 = −2. Answer: −2. The distractors: 22 comes from ignoring the minus sign and working out 3 × 4 + 10 = 22; −42 comes from adding before multiplying, giving (4 + 10) × (−3) = 14 × (−3) = −42; −22 comes from adding 12 and 10 and then writing a minus sign in front of the total, instead of moving 10 places up from −12.
- (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 588 rounds to 600 (1 s.f.) and 31 rounds to 30 (1 s.f.). 600 ÷ 30 = 20. Answer: 20. 17 comes from cutting 588 down to 500, keeping the leading digit as it stands instead of rounding it up to 1 significant figure, 600, then dividing by the correctly rounded 30. 200 comes from misreading the rounded divisor 30 as 3, giving 600 ÷ 3 instead of 600 ÷ 30. 19 is the exact value of 588 ÷ 31 rounded to the nearest whole number, found without rounding the numbers first.
- (c) 3:4 — The jacket costs 3/7 of £84, which is 3 × (84 ÷ 7) = 3 × 12 = £36. The bag then costs the rest of the money, £84 − £36 = £48. The ratio of the jacket to the bag is 36:48, which simplifies to 3:4. Writing the fraction spent on the jacket, 3/7, directly as the ratio, without working out that the bag's share is the remaining 4/7, gives 3:7. Giving the ratio the wrong way round, bag to jacket instead of jacket to bag, gives 4:3. Assuming the jacket and bag cost the same, ignoring the fraction given, gives 1:1.
- (c) 7/12 — Add all three parts to find the number of equal shares: 3 + 4 + 5 = 12. The fruit that are not plums are the apples and the pears together, which is 3 + 4 = 7 shares, so 7/12 of the fruit are not plums. 7/24 comes from adding 3/12 and 4/12 by adding the denominators as well as the numerators, 5/12 is the fraction that are plums, and 7/5 compares the other fruit with the plums instead of with the whole bowl.
- (b) 0 > −1 — Method: test each statement by placing both of its numbers on a number line; the greater number is the one further to the right. Working: every negative number lies to the left of zero, so zero is greater than −1. Among the negatives, −3 lies to the right of −5, so −5 is not greater than −3. Answer: 0 > −1. The distractors: −5 > −3 comes from ordering the negatives by the size of their digits, so that 5 makes −5 look the larger; −3 > 0 comes from ignoring the minus sign and comparing 3 with 0; 0 < −1 comes from the belief that zero is the smallest number there is, so that even a negative number is above it.
- (b) 7 — Method: trap the number between the two square numbers on either side of it, then decide which of them it is nearer to. Working: 6² = 36 and 7² = 49, so √45 lies between 6 and 7; 49 − 45 = 4 while 45 − 36 = 9, so 45 is nearer to 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 6 comes from taking the square number below 45 and stopping there, without checking which of 36 and 49 is nearer; 22.5 comes from halving 45 instead of looking for the number that multiplies by itself to give 45; 2,025 comes from squaring 45 instead of taking its square root.
- (a) 11 — Method: list every possible total from the smallest to the largest, and count how many different values there are. Working: the smallest total is 1+1=2 and the largest is 6+6=12, and every whole number total from 2 to 12 is possible: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 — that is 11 different totals. Answer: 11. 36 comes from counting the number of possible dice outcomes (6×6) instead of the number of different totals. 10 comes from listing the totals but missing one from the ends of the list, for example starting at 3 instead of 2. 6 comes from counting only the number of different scores on one die, not the totals of both dice together.
- (b) £45 — Since 2/3 of the amount is £30, one third is £30 ÷ 2 = £15, and the whole amount is three thirds: £15 × 3 = £45. Applying the fraction forwards to £30 instead of reversing it, £30 × 2/3 = £20, treats the given amount as the whole rather than as two thirds of it. Finding one third correctly as £15 but forgetting to multiply by 3 to get the whole amount leaves £15 as the final answer. Reading £30 as one third of the amount rather than as two thirds, and so multiplying straight by 3, gives £30 × 3 = £90.
- (d) −8, −3, 0, 2, 5 — Method: place the numbers on a number line and read them from left to right. Working: the negative numbers −8 and −3 come before 0, with −8 further left than −3 because it is further from zero in the negative direction; then 0, then the positive numbers 2 and 5 in increasing size. Answer: −8, −3, 0, 2, 5. −3, −8, 0, 2, 5 swaps −3 and −8, putting the negative number closer to zero first. 5, 2, 0, −3, −8 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. −8, −3, 2, 0, 5 puts 2 before 0, treating positive numbers as if they always come before zero.
- (b) 3/10 — Since each bag's ratio has 5 parts and both bags contain the same total number of nuts, imagine each bag has 5 nuts: Bag A has 2 peanuts and Bag B has 1 peanut, so together there are 2 + 1 = 3 peanuts out of a combined 5 + 5 = 10 nuts, giving 3/10. 1/5 comes from using only Bag A's peanuts, 2 out of 10, without adding Bag B's peanuts. 1/10 comes from using only Bag B's peanut, without adding Bag A's peanuts. 3/5 comes from writing the combined peanuts over the number of parts in one bag instead of the combined total number of nuts.
- (b) 4 — Method: the cube root of a number is the value that multiplies by itself three times to give that number. Working: 4 × 4 × 4 = 64, so ∛64 = 4. Answer: 4. (8 comes from finding the square root of 64 instead of the cube root. 192 comes from multiplying 64 by 3 instead of finding the number that cubes to 64. 21.3 comes from dividing 64 by 3 instead of finding its cube root.)
- (d) 5 — Method: the greatest number of identical bunches is the highest common factor of the two flower totals; then divide the red roses by that number of bunches. Working: 60 = 2² × 3 × 5 and 84 = 2² × 3 × 7, so their highest common factor is 2² × 3 = 12. That means 12 bunches, and 60 ÷ 12 = 5 red roses in each. 7 is the number of white roses in each bunch, since 84 ÷ 12 = 7, not red roses. 12 is the number of bunches itself, not the number of red roses in one bunch. 20 comes from working out 60 ÷ 3 = 20, dividing by only part of the highest common factor. Answer: 5.
- (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) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.
- (b) No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap — Method: each recorded jump stands for the lengths within half of 0.1 m, that is 0.05 m, of the figure recorded, and Priya is right only if the two ranges overlap. Working: Priya's jump is at least 3.8 − 0.05 = 3.75 m and below 3.85 m, because a jump of 3.85 m would have been recorded as 3.9 m; Nadia's jump is at least 3.85 m and below 3.9 + 0.05 = 3.95 m. Every length Priya could have jumped is below 3.85 m and every length Nadia could have jumped is at least 3.85 m, so Nadia jumped further whatever the exact lengths were. Answer: No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap. The distractors: the reason that a recorded jump is exactly the length jumped reaches the same verdict by treating a rounded record as exact, which is the idea this question tests; both jumps being 3.85 m would put 3.85 m inside Priya's range, when a jump of that length is recorded as 3.9 m; Priya jumping up to 3.9 m goes a whole 0.1 m above her record instead of half of it.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.