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) −1 — Method: find each cube root separately, keeping its sign, and then add the two results. Working: (−3) × (−3) × (−3) = −27, so ∛(−27) = −3, and 2 × 2 × 2 = 8, so ∛8 = 2. Adding gives −3 + 2 = −1. Answer: −1. The distractors: 5 comes from taking the cube root of a negative number as positive, giving 3 + 2; −5 comes from reading the minus sign as applying to the whole sum and working out −(3 + 2); −6 comes from multiplying the two roots, −3 × 2, instead of adding them.
- (a) −108 — Method: a power is worked out before any minus sign written in front of it, while a minus sign inside the brackets is part of the base. Working: (−3)⁴ = 81, because four negative factors multiply to a positive result, so −(−3)⁴ = −81. (−3)³ = −27, because three negative factors multiply to a negative result. Adding gives −81 + (−27) = −108. Answer: −108. The distractors: 54 comes from attaching the leading minus sign to the base, working out (−(−3))⁴ = 81 and then adding −27; −54 comes from taking (−3)³ as +27, forgetting that an odd power keeps the negative sign; 108 comes from believing that any power of a negative number is positive and that the leading minus belongs to the base, giving 81 + 27.
- (a) The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre — Method: a measurement should never be written to a finer degree of accuracy than the instrument used can read. Working: the tape is marked in centimetres, so the smallest division Leah can read is 1 cm, which is 0.01 m and two decimal places in metres; writing 7.3157 m claims the length to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, four decimal places, which the markings cannot support. A record of 7.32 m, to the nearest centimetre, is what this tape justifies. Answer: The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre. The distractors: the nearest millimetre contradicts the markings described in the question, which are centimetres, and would still claim more accuracy than the tape offers; the rule that a length in metres must be written to 2 decimal places borrows the habit of writing money to the penny, when the accuracy of a length depends on the instrument; rounding to the nearest metre would throw away accuracy the tape genuinely provides.
- (b) 4/9 — Method: double the butter part of the ratio, keeping flour the same, find the new total, then write butter's part over the new total. Working: the new ratio is flour : butter = 5 : 4, since butter doubles from 2 to 4. New total = 5 + 4 = 9. Fraction of butter = 4/9. Answer: 4/9. 2/9 comes from forgetting to double the butter part and using the original value 2 over the new total of 9. 4/7 comes from doubling the butter part correctly to 4 but keeping the old total of 7 instead of working out the new total. 2/5 comes from using the original ratio 5:2 directly as butter over flour without doubling anything.
- (d) −1.7 — Since the numbers have different signs, find the difference between their sizes: 4.5 − 2.8 = 1.7, then keep the sign of the number further from zero. So −4.5 + 2.8 = −1.7. A candidate who drops the negative sign gets 1.7. A candidate who adds the magnitudes instead of finding the difference gets −(4.5 + 2.8) = −7.3. A candidate who takes the smaller digit from the larger in the tenths column, doing 8 − 5 = 3 instead of borrowing to make 15 − 8 = 7, gets 2.3 and so −2.3.
- (c) 2 — First write 1 1/2 as an improper fraction, 3/2. To divide by 3/4, multiply by its reciprocal, 4/3: 3/2 × 4/3 = 12/6 = 2. Dropping the whole number and dividing only the fractional part, 1/2 ÷ 3/4 = 1/2 × 4/3, gives 2/3. Multiplying by 3/4 directly instead of using its reciprocal, 3/2 × 3/4, gives 9/8. Using the reciprocal of the first fraction instead of the second, 2/3 × 3/4, gives 1/2.
- (c) 0.7, 0.72, 3/4 — Method: numbers written in different forms cannot be compared as they stand, so every fraction is turned into a decimal by dividing the numerator by the denominator, and the decimals are then compared place by place from the left. Working: 3/4 means 3 ÷ 4 = 0.75, so the three values to compare are 0.7, 0.75 and 0.72; written to two decimal places they are 0.70, 0.75 and 0.72, and the hundredths digits 0, 5 and 2 put 0.70 first, 0.72 next and 0.75 last; written again in the forms the question used, the order from smallest is 0.7, then 0.72, then 3/4. Answer: 0.7, 0.72, 3/4. The distractors: 3/4, 0.7, 0.72 comes from turning 3/4 into 0.34 by writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point, which makes the fraction the smallest of the three; 0.72, 3/4, 0.7 comes from the belief that the more digits a decimal has the smaller it must be, which puts both 0.72 and 0.75 below 0.7 and 0.72 below 0.75; 3/4, 0.72, 0.7 comes from comparing the three values correctly but listing them largest first, against an instruction to start with the smallest.
- (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
- (c) 27 — Each of the 3 digits can be chosen independently for each of the 3 positions, so multiply: 3 × 3 × 3 = 27. 9 comes from multiplying only two of the three positions, 3 × 3, and forgetting the third. 6 comes from working out 3 × 2 × 1 = 6, which counts codes where digits do not repeat, but the question allows repeated digits. 3 comes from considering only one digit position.
- (a) 36 — Method: for the highest common factor, take the LOWER power of each prime that appears in both numbers. Working: for 2, the lower power is 2² (from 108); for 3, the lower power is 3² (from 72), so the highest common factor is 2² × 3² = 4 × 9 = 36. 216 comes from taking the higher power of each prime instead, 2³ × 3³ = 8 × 27 = 216, which gives the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. 108 is simply one of the two numbers, not their highest common factor. 6 comes from multiplying the primes without any powers at all, 2 × 3 = 6. Answer: 36.
- (c) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
- (a) −22 — Method: both multiplications are carried out before the addition, and a positive multiplied by a negative is negative. Working: (−3) × 4 = −12 and 2 × (−5) = −10, so the calculation becomes −12 + (−10) = −22. Answer: −22. The distractors: 22 comes from ignoring the minus signs and working out 3 × 4 + 2 × 5 = 22; 50 comes from working from left to right with no priority at all, giving −12 + 2 = −10 and then −10 × (−5) = 50; −2 comes from taking 2 × (−5) as +10, so that −12 + 10 = −2.
- (d) £800 — Rounding 38.7 to 1 significant figure gives 40, and rounding 21.40 to 1 significant figure gives 20. Multiplying the rounded values gives an estimate of 40 × 20 = £800. Rounding 21.40 to the nearest whole number instead of to 1 significant figure gives 21, and 40 × 21 = £840, one place value too fine for the price. Adding the rounded values instead of multiplying them gives 40 + 20 = £60. Rounding both numbers to 2 significant figures instead of 1, giving 39 and 21, produces 39 × 21 = £819.
- (c) 4.1 × 10³, 3.2 × 10⁴, 2.9 × 10⁵ — The exponent decides the size first: 10³ is smaller than 10⁴, which is smaller than 10⁵, so the order is 4.1 × 10³, then 3.2 × 10⁴, then 2.9 × 10⁵. Reversing the whole list gives largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. Comparing 3.2 × 10⁴ and 4.1 × 10³ by their coefficients alone, 3.2 against 4.1, and swapping them ignores that 10⁴ is bigger than 10³ regardless of the coefficient. Comparing 2.9 × 10⁵ and 3.2 × 10⁴ by their coefficients alone and swapping them makes the same mistake at the top of the list.
- (a) 6/11 — Method: add the parts of the ratio to find the total, then write the required part over the total. Working: 5 + 6 = 11 parts in total; lemons make up 6 of the 11 parts, so the fraction of lemons is 6/11, which is already in its simplest form. Answer: 6/11. 5/11 comes from finding the fraction of oranges instead of lemons. 5/6 comes from writing the ratio of oranges to lemons directly as a fraction instead of comparing lemons to the total. 6/5 comes from writing the ratio of lemons to oranges directly as a fraction instead of comparing lemons to the total.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.