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
- (c) 2/5 — To find a fraction of a fraction, multiply them together: 3/5 × 2/3 = 6/15, which simplifies to 2/5. Multiplying only the numerators, 3 × 2 = 6, but adding the denominators, 5 + 3 = 8, instead of multiplying them gives 6/8, which simplifies to 3/4. Using only the fraction who study French, 3/5, and ignoring that a further fraction of them also study Spanish gives 3/5. Dividing by 2/3 instead of multiplying by it, using its reciprocal 3/2, gives 3/5 × 3/2 = 9/10.
- (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) 590 — To round to the nearest 10, decide which multiple of 10 the number is nearer to. 592.5 lies between 590 and 600. It is 592.5 − 590 = 2.5 above 590, but 600 − 592.5 = 7.5 below 600, so it is much nearer to 590. Equivalently, the units digit is 2, and 2 is less than 5, so round down: 592.5 rounds to 590. A candidate who wrote 600 rounded up because of the 5 in the tenths place, but that digit decides rounding to the nearest whole number, not to the nearest 10 — the units digit is what matters here. A candidate who wrote 595 rounded to the nearest 5 instead of the nearest 10. A candidate who wrote 500 cut the number down to its hundreds digit instead of rounding to the nearest 10.
- (a) 30 cm — The tile's side length must be a common factor of 90 and 120. The factors of 90 include 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90; the factors of 120 include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120. The highest number common to both lists is 30, so the largest square tile has a side length of 30 cm. Picking 15 cm, a common factor but not the largest, gives tiles that are smaller than necessary. Picking 10 cm, also a common factor but smaller still, wastes even more of the possible tile size. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 360 cm, a length far bigger than either side of the patio. So the largest square tile Ben can use has a side length of 30 cm.
- (d) x⁴ — Method: dividing two powers of the same letter subtracts the index of the divisor from the index of the term being divided. Working: six factors of x on the top and two on the bottom cancel in pairs, leaving 6 − 2 = 4 factors of x. Answer: x⁴. The distractors: x³ comes from dividing the indices, 6 ÷ 2, instead of subtracting them; x⁸ comes from adding the indices, 6 + 2, as though the powers were being multiplied; x¹² comes from multiplying the indices, 6 × 2, as though a power were being raised to a power.
- (c) 5/8 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.625 = 625/1000 = 5/8 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 125). Answer: 5/8. 25/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 31/50 comes from rounding 0.625 to 0.62 before converting. 8/5 comes from simplifying correctly to 5/8 and then writing the fraction upside down.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 2/5 — The ratio 2:3 has 2 + 3 = 5 parts in total, and the larger plot is 3 of those parts. Since the larger plot is 18 m², each part is 18 ÷ 3 = 6 m², so the total area is 5 × 6 = 30 m² and the smaller plot is 2 × 6 = 12 m². The fraction of the total area taken up by the smaller plot is 12/30, which simplifies to 2/5. Giving the fraction for the larger plot instead of the smaller one gives 3/5. Comparing the smaller plot to the larger plot instead of to the total area gives 2/3. Assuming the two plots split the area evenly, ignoring the given ratio altogether, gives 1/2.
- (c) −28 — 6² = 36 and 4³ = 64. Work out 36 − 64 = −28. A candidate who subtracts in the wrong order gets 64 − 36 = 28. A candidate who adds instead of subtracting gets 36 + 64 = 100. A candidate who multiplies the base by the exponent instead of raising the power (6 × 2 − 4 × 3 = 12 − 12) gets 0.
- (c) −5 ≤ −5 — The symbol ≤ means 'less than or equal to', and −5 is equal to −5, so this statement is true. −3 ≥ −1 is false: a candidate who ignores the negative signs and compares 3 with 1 would wrongly think −3 is the bigger number, but on the number line −3 is smaller than −1. 0.4 < 2/5 is false because 2/5 converts to exactly 0.4, so the two values are equal, not one strictly less than the other — a candidate who assumes a fraction is automatically bigger than a similar-looking decimal without converting it would miss this. 7/10 ≤ 0.6 is false because 7/10 converts to 0.7, which is bigger than 0.6; a candidate who misplaces the decimal point and converts 7/10 as 0.07 would wrongly believe this statement is true.
- (c) 18 — 45 ÷ 5 = 9, and 2 × 9 = 18. A candidate who stops after finding one fifth gets 9. A candidate who uses 3/5 instead of 2/5 gets 27. A candidate who uses 4/5 instead of 2/5 gets 36.
- (d) 24 km — Method: a fraction acts as an operator, so finding 8/12 of a distance means dividing by the denominator and multiplying by the numerator. Working: 36 ÷ 12 = 3, so one twelfth of the walk is 3 km, and eight twelfths is 3 × 8 = 24 km. Answer: 24 km. The distractors: 12 km comes from working out the part of the walk still left, the other four twelfths, instead of the part already completed; 288 km comes from multiplying by the numerator without dividing by the denominator, giving 36 × 8 = 288; 4.5 km comes from dividing by the numerator instead of multiplying by it, giving 36 ÷ 8 = 4.5.
- (b) £1,000, so £900 is not enough — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, multiply to estimate the total cost, then compare the estimate with the money available. Working: 187 rounds to 200 and £4.85 rounds to £5, so the estimate is 200 × 5 = 1,000, and £1,000 is more than the £900 the school has. Answer: £1,000, so £900 is not enough. The distractors: £800 comes from cutting £4.85 down to £4 instead of rounding it up to £5, giving 200 × 4 = 800, and that estimate wrongly suggests the money stretches; £935 comes from rounding the price only and keeping 187 lunches, giving 187 × 5 = 935; £950 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 rather than to 1 significant figure, giving 190 × 5 = 950.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.