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) 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) 3 or −5 — Method: a point a fixed distance from another can lie on either side of it, so move the given distance in each direction from the starting point. Working: moving 4 units to the right gives −1 + 4 = 3, and moving 4 units to the left gives −1 − 4 = −5. Answer: 3 or −5. The distractors: 5 or −3 comes from starting at 1 instead of −1, giving 1 + 4 and 1 − 4; 3 only comes from moving to the right and forgetting that the point could lie to the left as well; 4 or −4 comes from measuring the distance from zero instead of from point A, which just repeats the given distance.
- (c) 20 — Method: work out each power separately before subtracting. Working: 6² = 36 and 4² = 16, so 6² − 4² = 36 − 16 = 20. Answer: 20. (4 comes from subtracting first, 6 − 4 = 2, and then squaring that result, instead of squaring each number first. 52 comes from adding the two squares, 36 + 16, instead of subtracting them. 2 comes from subtracting the two numbers, 6 − 4, and forgetting to square at all.)
- (b) 3 — Method: solving an index equation like this means finding how many factors of the base multiply together to give the number on the right. Working: 4¹ = 4, 4² = 16 and 4³ = 64, so three factors of 4 are needed. Answer: 3. The distractors: 4 comes from listing 4, 16 and 64 and counting the base itself as a step, which gives one more than the index; 6 comes from solving the equation with 2 as the base instead of 4, since 2⁶ = 64; 16 comes from dividing 64 by 4, treating the index as an instruction to divide.
- (a) 6 × 10² metres — Method: distance = speed × time, so multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 3 × 2 = 6 for the coefficients, and 8 + (−6) = 2 for the indices; 6 lies between 1 and 10, so the coefficient needs no adjustment. Answer: 6 × 10² metres, which is 600 metres. The distractors: 5 × 10² metres comes from adding the coefficients, 3 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 6 × 10¹⁴ metres comes from subtracting the indices, 8 − (−6), which is the rule for dividing rather than for multiplying; 6 × 10⁻⁴⁸ metres comes from multiplying the indices, 8 × (−6), instead of adding them.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 2.5 × 10⁷ — Method: place the decimal point so that the coefficient is at least 1 and less than 10, then count the places it has moved. Working: the digits give a coefficient of 2.5, and the decimal point travels from the end of 25,000,000 until it sits between the 2 and the 5, a move of 7 places. Answer: 2.5 × 10⁷. The distractors: 25 × 10⁶ is the same area but not in standard form, because the coefficient must be less than 10; 2.5 × 10⁸ comes from counting the eight digits of 25,000,000 instead of the seven places the decimal point moves; 2.5 × 10⁻⁷ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left.
- (a) 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6 — Convert all four fractions to a common denominator of 30: 2/3 is 20/30, 3/5 is 18/30, 5/6 is 25/30, and 1/2 is 15/30. Ordering by these numerators, smallest to largest, gives 15/30, 18/30, 20/30, 25/30, which is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6. Ordering by the size of the numerator in the original fractions, 1, 2, 3, 5, rather than converting to a common denominator, gives the wrong order 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/6, because it ignores that the denominators are different. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 5/6, 2/3, 3/5, 1/2. Using the rule "the bigger the denominator, the smaller the fraction" to place the last two, so that 5/6 is put below 2/3 because 6 is bigger than 3, gives 1/2, 3/5, 5/6, 2/3 — that rule only holds when the numerators are the same, and here 20/30 really is smaller than 25/30. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6.
- (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.
- (b) 7:2 — If 2/9 of the choir are boys, the remaining 7/9 must be girls, since the two fractions together make the whole choir. The ratio of girls to boys compares these two parts to each other, giving 7:2. Writing the ratio the wrong way round, boys to girls instead of girls to boys, gives 2:7. Comparing the number of girls to the whole choir instead of to the number of boys gives 7:9. Simply rewriting the given fraction, 2/9, as a ratio without working out how many are girls gives 2:9.
- (b) £8 — Rounding to 1 significant figure: £1.85 rounds to £2, and 3.6 kg rounds to 4 kg. The estimate is £2 × 4 = £8. A candidate who used the unrounded values instead of estimating worked out 1.85 × 3.6 = £6.66. A candidate who rounded only the mass and used the exact price worked out 1.85 × 4 = £7.40. A candidate who rounded the price to the nearest 10p instead of 1 significant figure worked out 1.9 × 4 = £7.60.
- (d) 2 hours — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round the distance first and then divide by the speed. Working: 95 km rounds to 100 km, and 100 ÷ 50 = 2; the speed is in kilometres per hour, so the answer is a number of hours. Answer: 2 hours. The distractors: 1 hour comes from rounding the distance down to 50 km to match the speed, so that the journey looks like a single hour of driving; 30 minutes comes from dividing the speed by the distance, 50 ÷ 100, instead of the distance by the speed; 1 hour 54 minutes is the exact time, 95 ÷ 50 = 1.9 hours, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
- (b) 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3 — Truncating simply cuts off the digits after the required decimal place instead of rounding them, so every value from 6.2 up to (but not reaching) 6.3 truncates to 6.2. This gives the error interval 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3, with no allowance made on the lower side because truncation never rounds a smaller value up into this interval. Using 6.15 ≤ x < 6.25 applies the rounding rule of going half a unit either side, which does not apply to truncation. Writing 6.1 < x ≤ 6.2 puts the interval below 6.2 instead of above it. Writing 6.2 ≤ x ≤ 6.3 wrongly includes 6.3, which truncates down to itself, not to 6.2.
- (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.