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
- (a) 24 — Method: rearrange the relationship so that the lowest common multiple stands alone; it is the product of the two numbers divided by their highest common factor. Working: 48 = 2 × the lowest common multiple, so the lowest common multiple is 48 ÷ 2 = 24. Checking, 24 is in the 6 times table and in the 8 times table. Answer: 24. The distractors: 48 comes from giving the product of the two numbers and never dividing by the highest common factor; 96 comes from multiplying by the highest common factor instead of dividing by it; 12 comes from dividing by the highest common factor twice, once for each of the two numbers.
- (d) the first mark after 0 — Method: when a unit length is split into equal parts, each gap is one part of the whole, so 1/4 is one gap along from 0. Working: four equal parts means each gap measures 1/4, so the marks after 0 stand for 1/4, 2/4, 3/4 and 4/4. One gap along from 0 is therefore the mark for 1/4. Answer: the first mark after 0. The distractors: the second mark after 0 comes from counting 0 itself as the first mark; the third mark after 0 comes from counting back from the 1 end instead of forward from 0; the fourth mark after 0 comes from reading the 4 in the denominator as the number of the mark rather than the number of parts.
- (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) £120 — Total parts = 5 + 3 = 8, so one part is worth 320 ÷ 8 = 40 pounds. The cake sale is 3 parts, so it raised 3 × 40 = 120 pounds. £200 comes from working out the raffle's share, 5 × 40, instead of the cake sale's share. £40 comes from finding the value of one part but forgetting to multiply by 3. £192 comes from dividing the total by 5 instead of 8 to find the value of one part, 320 ÷ 5 = 64, then multiplying by 3, 3 × 64 = 192.
- (a) 14 — Multiply both numbers by 10 to clear the decimals: 8.4 becomes 84 and 0.6 becomes 6. Then divide: 84 ÷ 6 = 14, so 14 complete pieces can be cut. Scaling only the divisor by 10 and leaving the dividend as 8.4 gives 8.4 ÷ 6 = 1.4, which rounds down to 1 complete piece — the dividend was never converted. Scaling only the dividend by 10 and leaving the divisor as 0.6 gives 84 ÷ 0.6 = 140. Rounding the divisor from 0.6 to 0.7 before dividing, trading accuracy for a rounder number, gives 8.4 ÷ 0.7 = 12. So 14 complete pieces of ribbon can be cut.
- (b) 9/25 — Method: write the decimal over the matching power of ten, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.36 has two digits after the point, so 0.36 = 36/100; the highest common factor of 36 and 100 is 4, and 36 ÷ 4 = 9 with 100 ÷ 4 = 25; since 9 and 25 share no factor greater than 1, the fraction is fully cancelled. Answer: 9/25. The distractors: 3/10 comes from reading only the first digit after the point and converting 0.3; 9/50 comes from dividing the numerator by 4 but the denominator by only 2; 36/10 comes from counting one decimal place instead of two and writing the digits over 10.
- (b) 8/5 — The reciprocal of a fraction a/b is b/a — swap the numerator and denominator. So the reciprocal of 5/8 is 8/5. A candidate who wrote 5/8 gave the original fraction, not its reciprocal. A candidate who worked out 1 − 5/8 = 3/8 confused 'reciprocal' with subtracting from 1. A candidate who wrote −8/5 inverted the fraction correctly but introduced an unnecessary sign change.
- (d) 2³ × 5² — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number, then write any repeated prime using a power. Working: 200 ÷ 2 = 100, 100 ÷ 2 = 50, 50 ÷ 2 = 25, 25 ÷ 5 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 200 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 5 × 5, written as 2³ × 5². 2² × 5³ swaps the two powers, giving 4 × 125 = 500, not 200. 2³ × 5 leaves out one of the two 5s, giving 8 × 5 = 40, not 200. 2 × 5³ leaves out two of the three 2s, giving 2 × 125 = 250, not 200. Answer: 2³ × 5².
- (d) 0.3 — Converting the fractions to decimals, 1/4 = 0.25 and 2/5 = 0.4, so any decimal between 0.25 and 0.4 is a valid answer, and 0.3 fits. Confusing 1/4 with 1/5 and converting it as 0.2 instead of 0.25 gives a value below the true lower bound. Confusing 2/5 with 1/2 and converting it as 0.5 instead of 0.4 gives a value above the true upper bound. Converting the fractions correctly but choosing a decimal above the true upper bound of 0.4 instead of between the two values gives 0.45.
- (c) 693 — Method: multiplying a bracket by a number multiplies every term inside it, so 7 × (100 − 1) = 7 × 100 − 7 × 1. Working: 7 × 100 = 700 and 7 × 1 = 7, so the calculation becomes 700 − 7 = 693. Answer: 693. The distractors: 699 comes from subtracting the 1 itself rather than 7 lots of it, giving 700 − 1 = 699; 707 comes from adding the second product instead of subtracting it, giving 700 + 7 = 707; 700 comes from rounding 99 up to 100 and then offering the estimate 7 × 100 as an exact value.
- (c) £80 — Method: a unit fraction acts as an operator, so finding 1/9 of a price means dividing that price by 9. Working: £720 ÷ 9 = £80. Answer: £80. The distractors: £6480 comes from multiplying by the denominator instead of dividing by it, giving £720 × 9 = £6480; £640 comes from working out what is left of the £720 once the case is paid for, £720 − £80, instead of the cost of the case itself; £72 comes from dividing by 10 instead of 9, treating one ninth as one tenth.
- (a) 1/2 — The ratio 1:2:3 has 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts in total. Amir and Bo together receive 1 + 2 = 3 of those parts, so together they receive 3/6 of the £60, which simplifies to 1/2. Using only Amir's single part, 1/6, ignores Bo's share entirely. Adding Bo's and Chen's parts instead of Amir's and Bo's, 2 + 3 = 5, gives 5/6. Comparing Amir and Bo's 3 parts to Chen's 3 parts, rather than to the total of 6 parts, gives 3/3 = 1.
- (b) 5 — Method: find the square root first, then divide. Working: √225 = 15, and 15 ÷ 3 = 5. Answer: 5. (75 comes from dividing 225 by 3 first and forgetting to take the square root at all. 8.7 comes from dividing 225 by 3 inside the root, √(225 ÷ 3) ≈ 8.7, instead of taking the root first. 45 comes from misreading the divisor as 5 instead of 3, working out 225 ÷ 5 = 45.)
- (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
- (a) 0.08 — Method: decimal places are counted from the decimal point, including any zeros straight after it, so rounding to 2 decimal places is decided by the digit in the third decimal place. Working: 0.0759 has 7 in the second decimal place and 5 in the third, and 5 counts as rounding up, so the 7 goes up to 8. Answer: 0.08. The distractors: 0.07 comes from chopping the digits after the second decimal place off instead of rounding them; 0.076 is 0.0759 correct to 2 significant figures rather than 2 decimal places, because the zeros in front of the 7 are not significant figures; 0.1 is 0.0759 rounded to 1 decimal place, a coarser degree of accuracy than the question asks for.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.