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) £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.
- (b) 3.65 ≤ n < 3.75 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means n can be up to half of one decimal place, 0.05, below or above 3.7 before it would round to a different value. This gives a lower bound of 3.7 − 0.05 = 3.65 and an upper bound of 3.7 + 0.05 = 3.75. A value exactly at 3.75 would round up to 3.8, not 3.7, so the upper bound is excluded while the lower bound, 3.65, does still round to 3.7. Writing 3.65 ≤ n ≤ 3.75 wrongly includes 3.75. Writing 3.6 ≤ n < 3.8 uses a whole decimal place, 0.1, either side instead of half of one, 0.05. Writing 3.65 < n < 3.75 wrongly excludes 3.65, which does round to 3.7.
- (a) Yes, because 120 ends in 0 — Method: a whole number divides exactly by 5 when its last digit is 5 or 0, so look at the final digit. Working: the final digit of 120 is 0, so 120 is a multiple of 5; the division confirms it, since 5 × 24 = 120 with nothing left over. Answer: Yes, because 120 ends in 0. The distractors: the option that says yes because 120 is even reaches the right conclusion from the wrong test, since being even is the test for divisibility by 2, and 14 is even but is not a multiple of 5; saying no because 5 does not divide into 12 comes from ignoring the final digit and testing only the leading digits; saying no because the digits add to 3 applies the digit-sum test, which works for 3 and for 9 but not for 5.
- (d) 3/5 — Method: a decimal with one digit after the point is a number of tenths, so it is written over 10 and then cancelled. Working: 0.6 is six tenths, so 0.6 = 6/10; the highest common factor of 6 and 10 is 2, and 6 ÷ 2 = 3 with 10 ÷ 2 = 5. Answer: 3/5. The distractors: 2/3 comes from confusing 0.6 with the recurring decimal 0.666..., which is the one that equals 2/3; 1/6 comes from putting 1 over the single digit after the point; 3/50 comes from using hundredths for a one-place decimal, giving 6/100, which then cancels by 2 to 3/50.
- (c) Yes — the greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, under 500 kg — 493 kg correct to the nearest kg means the true total mass, m, satisfies 492.5 kg ≤ m < 493.5 kg. The greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, which is under the 500 kg safe working load, so the four people are definitely within it. 'The true total could be as high as 498 kg' comes from treating 'nearest kg' as an error of ±5 kg instead of ±0.5 kg. 'Cannot be decided without the exact total' overlooks that the error interval already gives the greatest possible total, so the decision can be made without knowing the exact figure. '493 kg is only an estimate, so it may be over 500 kg' ignores that the error interval is bounded — the true total cannot exceed 493.5 kg, well under 500 kg.
- (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) 24 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 6.4 rounds to 6 (nearest whole number) and 3.9 rounds to 4 (nearest whole number). 6 × 4 = 24. Answer: 24. 18 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 4, giving 6 × 3. 28 comes from rounding 6.4 up to 7 instead of down to the nearest whole number, 6, giving 7 × 4. 25 is the exact value of 6.4 × 3.9, which is 24.96, rounded to the nearest whole number after multiplying, rather than estimated by rounding first.
- (a) 200 g — One quarter of 160 g is 40 g. Increasing the amount means adding this on: 160 + 40 = 200 g. Finding the increase, 1/4 of 160 = 40 g, but stopping there without adding it to the original amount leaves just 40 g. Using 4/5 instead of 5/4 as the scaling fraction, 160 × 4/5 = 128 g, actually decreases the amount rather than increasing it. Increasing by a half instead of a quarter, 160 + 80 = 240 g, uses the wrong fraction of 160.
- (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.
- (c) 0.07 — Each digit after the decimal point has a place value: the first digit is tenths, the second is hundredths, the third is thousandths. In 3.472, the 4 is in the tenths place and the 7 is in the hundredths place, so it is worth 0.07. Reading it as 7 ignores place value altogether, treating it as if it were a whole number. Reading it as 0.7 puts it one place too big, in the tenths place. Reading it as 0.007 puts it one place too small, in the thousandths place. The digit 7 in 3.472 is worth 0.07.
- (a) 40 — Multiply the number of choices for each item: 4 × 5 × 2 = 40. 11 comes from adding the three numbers instead of multiplying them. 20 comes from multiplying only the crisps and chocolate bars, 4 × 5, and forgetting the drink. 10 comes from multiplying only the chocolate bars and drinks, 5 × 2, and forgetting the crisps.
- (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.
- (b) −0.7 < −0.25 — Method: compare the two negative decimals by their distance from zero on a number line. Working: −0.7 is 0.7 away from zero and −0.25 is 0.25 away from zero, so −0.7 is further from zero in the negative direction, making it the smaller number. Answer: −0.7 < −0.25 is true. "−0.7 > −0.25" comes from comparing 0.7 and 0.25 as if both numbers were positive, ignoring the negative signs. "−0.7 = −0.25" comes from assuming the two numbers are equal because they are both negative decimals. "−0.7 ≥ −0.25" combines the false statement "−0.7 > −0.25" with the false statement "−0.7 = −0.25".
- (d) 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17. — Check 51 for small prime factors: 51 ÷ 3 = 17, and both 3 and 17 are themselves prime, so 51 = 3 × 17 and 51 is not a prime number — it has factors other than 1 and itself. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 and concluding wrongly that none of them divide 51 misses that 3 does divide it exactly, so the claim that 51 is prime because it avoids 2, 3 and 5 is false. Assuming any odd number must be prime ignores that 51 = 3 × 17 is a counterexample — plenty of odd numbers are not prime. Misreading 51 as the even number 52 leads to the false claim that it is divisible by 2; 51 itself is odd, and 2 is not one of its factors. So 51 is not prime, because 51 = 3 × 17.
- (c) An under-estimate, by 8 — Method: work out the exact product, then compare it with the estimate; an estimate that is smaller than the exact value is an under-estimate, and the difference between them is the size of the error. Working: 48 × 21 = 48 × 20 + 48 = 960 + 48 = 1,008, and 1,008 − 1,000 = 8, so the estimate falls short. Answer: an under-estimate, by 8. The distractors: an over-estimate by 8 has the size of the error right but the direction wrong, and comes from assuming that rounding 48 up to 50 must push the estimate above the exact value, without allowing for 21 being rounded down; an over-estimate by 19 comes from working out 48 × 21 as 48 × 20 + 21 = 981, adding a 21 where another 48 belongs; the claim that the estimate is exactly right comes from arguing that one number was rounded up and the other down, so the two changes must cancel.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.