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
- (d) 60 — Method: a percentage acts as an operator, so finding 20% of an amount means multiplying it by 20/100, which cancels to 1/5. Working: 20% = 20/100 = 1/5, and 300 ÷ 5 = 60. Answer: 60 seats. The distractors: 15 comes from reading 20% as one twentieth and working out 300 ÷ 20 = 15; 30 comes from finding 10% of 300 and stopping there instead of doubling it; 6 comes from converting 20% to 0.02 rather than 0.2, giving 0.02 × 300 = 6.
- (a) 9 °C — Method: the fall is the difference between the two readings, so subtract the lower reading from the higher one; subtracting a negative number is the same as adding its positive. Working: 3 − (−6) = 3 + 6 = 9. Counting it out, the temperature drops 3 degrees to reach zero and a further 6 degrees below zero. Answer: 9 °C. The distractors: −9 °C comes from subtracting the readings the wrong way round, as −6 − 3, and reporting a fall as a negative amount; 3 °C comes from ignoring the minus sign and working out 6 − 3; 6 °C comes from counting only the part of the fall that happens below zero and forgetting the 3 degrees above it.
- (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) to the nearest centimetre — Method: the error interval of a rounded measurement runs from half a unit below the stated value to half a unit above it, so the width of the interval is one whole unit of the accuracy used. Working: the interval runs from 24.5 to 25.5, a width of 25.5 − 24.5 = 1, so the unit of accuracy is 1 cm; the stated value is the midpoint, 25 cm, and 25 correct to the nearest centimetre is exactly what gives 24.5 ≤ L < 25.5. Answer: to the nearest centimetre. To the nearest 0.5 cm comes from reading the half-unit, 0.5, as the accuracy itself instead of doubling it back to the full unit. To 1 decimal place comes from seeing the bounds written with one decimal place and taking that as the accuracy, but the bounds of a value given to 1 decimal place would be only 0.05 either side. To the nearest 10 cm comes from confusing the size of the value, about 25, with the unit it was rounded to; rounding to the nearest 10 cm would give an interval 5 cm either side of the stated value.
- (a) They cannot both be describing the same path — Jon's measurement means the true length, l, satisfies 11.5 m ≤ l < 12.5 m. Mia's measurement means the true length satisfies 12.55 m ≤ l < 12.65 m. These two ranges do not overlap, so the two measurements cannot both be describing the same path. 'They must both be describing the same path' ignores that the two ranges do not overlap at all. 'Jon's measurement must be wrong' wrongly assumes Jon is the one at fault, when the mismatch does not show which measurement, if either, is wrong. 'Mia's measurement must be wrong' makes the same unjustified assumption in the other direction.
- (c) 0.024 — Multiply the digits ignoring the decimal points: 6 × 4 = 24. Count the total number of decimal places in the two numbers being multiplied: 0.6 has 1 decimal place and 0.04 has 2, giving 3 in total. Place the decimal point in 24 so that there are 3 digits after it: 0.024. Counting only 2 decimal places instead of 3 gives 0.24. Counting 4 decimal places instead of 3 gives 0.0024. Counting only 1 decimal place instead of 3 — in effect moving the point in just one of the two numbers, as if the calculation were 6 × 0.4 — gives 2.4. So 0.6 × 0.04 = 0.024.
- (c) 8,000,000,000 — Method: a power of ten is 1 followed by that many zeros, so 8 × 10⁹ is 8 multiplied by 1 followed by nine zeros. Working: 10⁹ = 1,000,000,000, and 8 × 1,000,000,000 puts an 8 in front of those nine zeros. Answer: 8,000,000,000. The distractors: 800,000,000 comes from writing nine digits altogether instead of nine zeros after the 8; 720 comes from reading 10⁹ as 10 × 9 = 90 and then working out 8 × 90; 0.000000008 comes from treating the index as negative and carrying the decimal point nine places to the left.
- (d) 64 — Method: each time the power increases by 1, the value doubles, since one more 2 is multiplied in. Working: 2⁶ = 2⁵ × 2 = 32 × 2 = 64. Answer: 64. (37 comes from adding the power to the value, 32 + 5, instead of multiplying by the base. 192 comes from multiplying 32 by the new power, 6, instead of by the base, 2. 34 comes from adding the base to the value, 32 + 2, instead of multiplying.)
- (a) 6 — Method: the two scoops sit in different places on the cone, so a cone is an ordered choice; the possibilities can be listed systematically or counted by multiplying the choices available at each stage. Working: there are 3 flavours for the bottom scoop, and once that flavour is used only 2 flavours remain for the top scoop, so there are 3 × 2 = 6 cones; listing them confirms this, since vanilla on the bottom allows mango or pistachio on top, mango on the bottom allows vanilla or pistachio, and pistachio on the bottom allows vanilla or mango. Answer: 6. The distractors: 3 comes from treating the two scoops as interchangeable, so that vanilla under mango and mango under vanilla are counted as one cone; 9 comes from allowing the same flavour to be used for both scoops, giving 3 × 3; 5 comes from adding the 3 choices for the bottom scoop to the 2 choices left for the top scoop instead of multiplying them.
- (a) 3200 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded numbers. Working: 37 rounds to 40 (the digit after the first, 7, rounds the 3 up to 4), and 84 rounds to 80, so the estimate is 40 × 80 = 3200. 2400 comes from rounding 37 down to 30, keeping the first digit as it is instead of letting the 7 round it up, giving 30 × 80 = 2400. 3108 comes from multiplying the exact numbers, 37 × 84, without rounding either of them first. 120 comes from adding the rounded numbers, 40 + 80 = 120, instead of multiplying them. Answer: 3200.
- (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.
- (a) 18 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then square each rounded number and add the results. Working: 2.9 rounds to 3 and 3.1 rounds to 3, so the estimate is 3² + 3² = 9 + 9. Answer: 18. The distractors: 36 comes from adding before squaring, working out (3 + 3)² instead of 3² + 3²; 12 comes from doubling each rounded number instead of squaring it, adding 6 and 6; 6 comes from adding the two rounded numbers and forgetting to square them at all.
- (a) 14 — Brackets first: 9 − 6 = 3. Then multiply: 3 × 3 = 9. Then add: 5 + 9 = 14. So the answer is 14. A candidate who worked out (5 + 3) × (9 − 6) = 8 × 3 = 24 added before multiplying, ignoring the priority of operations outside the bracket. A candidate who dropped the brackets and worked out 5 + 3 × 9 − 6 = 5 + 27 − 6 = 26 multiplied by the 9 itself instead of by the bracket's value of 3, losing the grouping the brackets give. A candidate who forgot to add the 5 and only worked out 3 × (9 − 6) = 3 × 3 = 9 dropped a term from the calculation.
- (c) 2/3 — Method: multiply the numerators together and the denominators together, then divide both parts of the result by their highest common factor. Working: 3 × 14 = 42 and 7 × 9 = 63, giving 42/63; the highest common factor of 42 and 63 is 21, and 42 ÷ 21 = 2 with 63 ÷ 21 = 3. Answer: 2/3. The distractors: 17/16 comes from adding the numerators and adding the denominators, giving (3 + 14)/(7 + 9); 27/98 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 3/7 × 9/14; 2/21 comes from cancelling the 7 into the 14 in the numerator but leaving the 7 in the denominator, giving 6/63.
- (b) Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g — Method: a mass shown to the nearest 10 g lies within half of 10 g, that is 5 g, of the figure on the display, so compare the smallest mass the bag can have with the checker's limit of 996 g. Working: 1,000 − 5 = 995, so the actual mass of the bag can be as low as 995 g, and 995 g is below the 996 g limit, so a bag showing 1,000 g on the machine can still be rejected. Answer: Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g. The distractors: 990 g comes from going a whole 10 g below the display instead of half of it; 999.5 g comes from treating the display as being to the nearest gram, when it is to the nearest 10 g; the claim that the mass is exactly 1,000 g treats a rounded display as an exact measurement.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.