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) 54 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 79.3 rounds to 79 (nearest whole number) and 24.6 rounds to 25 (nearest whole number). 79 − 25 = 54. Answer: 54. 54.7 is the exact value of 79.3 − 24.6, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate. 55 comes from rounding 24.6 down to 24 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 24. 59 comes from rounding 24.6 to the nearest 10, 20, instead of to the nearest whole number, 25, giving 79 − 20.
- (c) 6 — The units digit must be even, so it can be 2 or 8, giving 2 choices. The tens digit can then be any of the remaining 3 digits, since one digit has been used for the units. Multiply: 2 × 3 = 6. 12 comes from working out how many two-digit numbers can be made in total, 4 × 3 = 12, ignoring the requirement that the number is even. 8 comes from choosing the units digit from 2 options and then wrongly allowing any of the 4 digits again for the tens digit, 2 × 4 = 8, which lets a digit repeat. 2 comes from counting only the choices for the units digit and forgetting the tens digit.
- (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.
- (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) Yes, because 14.8 cm rounds to 15 cm to the nearest cm — Method: a recorded measurement is not an exact length; it stands for every length that rounds to it, so the two records agree if one rod can produce both. Working: Ben's record of 14.8 cm to the nearest 0.1 cm means the rod is between 14.75 cm and 14.85 cm, and 14.8 is nearer to 15 than to 14, so a rod of that length is recorded as 15 cm to the nearest centimetre. Both records can therefore come from the same rod. Answer: Yes, because 14.8 cm rounds to 15 cm to the nearest cm. The distractors: the claim that 14.8 cm rounds to 15.0 cm to 1 decimal place is false, since 14.8 cm is already written to 1 decimal place and stays 14.8 cm; the claim that it rounds to 14 cm is false, because 14.8 is 0.2 away from 15 and 0.8 away from 14; the claim that the two lengths are not the same treats each record as an exact length, when each is only a rounded record of one rod.
- (a) 0.35, 3/8, 0.4 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so all three values can be compared directly. Working: 3/8 = 0.375, so the three values are 0.35, 0.375 and 0.4. In order from smallest to largest: 0.35, 3/8 (0.375), 0.4. Answer: 0.35, 3/8, 0.4. "3/8, 0.35, 0.4" comes from assuming a fraction must be smaller than any decimal, without converting it first. "0.4, 3/8, 0.35" comes from writing the numbers in reverse order. "0.35, 0.4, 3/8" comes from converting 3/8 by flipping it to 8/3, making it seem larger than both decimals.
- (c) 16:25 — Add the whole hour first: 14:35 plus 1 hour is 15:35. Then add the 50 minutes. From 15:35, 25 minutes reaches 16:00 and the remaining 25 minutes gives 16:25. 15:85 adds 35 and 50 to get 85 minutes and never exchanges 60 of them for an hour, 16:05 treats 1 hour 50 minutes as 1.5 hours, and 12:45 subtracts the journey time instead of adding it.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 364 — Divide in stages using multiples of 12. 12 × 300 = 3600, leaving a remainder of 4368 − 3600 = 768. Then 12 × 64 = 768, so 4368 ÷ 12 = 300 + 64 = 364. Placing the decimal point as though dividing 436.8 by 12 gives 36.4. Transposing the last two digits of 364 gives 346. Working out 768 ÷ 12 as 4 instead of 64, losing the tens digit, and adding 300 + 4 gives 304. So 4368 ÷ 12 = 364.
- (c) 280 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded numbers. Working: 6.8 rounds to 7 because the next digit is 8, and 41 rounds to 40 because its next digit is 1, so the estimate is 7 × 40 = 280. Answer: 280. The distractors: 240 comes from cutting 6.8 down to 6 instead of rounding it up to 7, giving 6 × 40 = 240; 350 comes from rounding 41 up to 50 when the digit after its first significant figure is less than 5, giving 7 × 50 = 350; 28 comes from multiplying the leading digits only and losing the place value of the 40, which makes the estimate ten times too small.
- (c) 9 — Method: factors come in pairs that multiply to give the number, so work through the pairs in order; a factor paired with itself is counted only once. Working: the pairs are 1 × 100, 2 × 50, 4 × 25, 5 × 20 and 10 × 10. The first four pairs give eight different factors, and the last pair adds only one more, so the factors are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 and 100. Answer: 9. The distractors: 10 comes from counting the pair 10 × 10 as two separate factors; 8 comes from leaving 1 out of the list, on the view that 1 is not a proper factor; 4 comes from writing 100 = 2² × 5² and multiplying the two indices together instead of adding 1 to each index first.
- (a) Fewer than 48,500 people attended — Method: a figure given to the nearest thousand lies within half of 1,000, that is 500, of the figure printed, so the attendance is at least 47,500 and below 48,500. Working: 48,000 − 500 = 47,500 and 48,000 + 500 = 48,500, and an attendance of 48,500 would have been reported as 49,000, so every possible attendance is below 48,500. Answer: Fewer than 48,500 people attended. The distractors: more than 48,500 turns the upper limit of the range into a minimum; fewer than 47,500 uses the lower limit as though it were the upper one; more than 48,000 assumes the printed figure was rounded down, when it could just as well have been rounded up from a smaller attendance.
- (d) 11 mm — Method: for a square, the side length is the square root of the area. Working: 11 × 11 = 121, so the side length is 11 mm. 60.5 mm comes from working out 121 ÷ 2 = 60.5, halving the area instead of finding its square root. 242 mm comes from working out 121 × 2 = 242, doubling the area instead of finding its square root. 22 mm comes from working out 11 × 2 = 22, doubling the correct side length. Answer: 11 mm.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.