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) 330 ml — Correct to the nearest 20 ml means the true volume could be up to 10 ml (half of 20) either side of 340 ml. The smallest possible volume is 340 − 10 = 330 ml. A candidate who subtracted the full 20 ml instead of half of it worked out 340 − 20 = 320 ml. A candidate who added instead of subtracted, finding the largest possible volume instead of the smallest, worked out 340 + 10 = 350 ml. A candidate who halved the interval again by mistake, using 5 ml instead of 10 ml, worked out 340 − 5 = 335 ml.
- (d) 600 — Method: the number of seats is the number of rows multiplied by the number of seats in each row, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then multiply the rounded values, which is quick because a product of two multiples of ten is found by multiplying the non-zero digits and attaching the zeros. Working: 21 rounds to 20 and 29 rounds to 30; 2 × 3 = 6, and 20 and 30 carry one zero each, so two zeros follow the 6. Answer: about 600 seats. The distractors: 50 comes from adding the two rounded numbers instead of multiplying them, 20 + 30; 60 comes from multiplying 20 by the 3 of 30 and forgetting the zero in 30; 6,000 comes from attaching three zeros to 2 × 3 when 20 and 30 provide only two between them.
- (a) £18 — Method: the percentage acts as an operator on the bill, and 15% can be built from 10% and 5%, where 5% is half of 10%. Working: 10% of £120 is £120 ÷ 10 = £12, and 5% is half of that, £6, so the charge is £12 + £6 = £18. Answer: £18. The distractors: £8 comes from reading 15% as one fifteenth and working out £120 ÷ 15 = £8; £12 comes from finding 10% of the bill and stopping there; £138 comes from finding the charge correctly and then giving the new total, £120 + £18, rather than the charge the question asks for.
- (d) 60 mph — Average speed = distance ÷ time, with the time measured in hours. 45 minutes is 45/60 of an hour, which is 0.75 of an hour, so the journey takes 1.75 hours. Speed = 105 ÷ 1.75 = 60 mph. 52.5 mph rounds the time up to 2 hours, 72.4 mph writes 1 hour 45 minutes as 1.45 hours, and 183.75 mph multiplies the distance by the time instead of dividing.
- (b) 1 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index before the subtraction, and a negative number multiplied by itself gives a positive result. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, so the calculation becomes 4 − 3 = 1. Answer: 1. The distractors: −7 comes from squaring only the 2 and leaving the minus sign outside the index, giving −(2²) − 3 = −4 − 3 = −7; −1 comes from subtracting the square from 3 instead of 3 from the square, giving 3 − 4 = −1; 25 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the index, giving (−2 − 3)² = (−5)² = 25.
- (a) 2 × 3² × 5 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number until only prime factors remain. Working: 90 ÷ 2 = 45, 45 ÷ 3 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 90 = 2 × 3 × 3 × 5, written as 2 × 3² × 5. 2 × 3 × 15 stops before the 15 is broken down into 3 × 5, so it is not fully factorised. 3 × 3 × 10 stops before the 10 is broken down into 2 × 5. 2 × 45 stops after only one division. Answer: 2 × 3² × 5.
- (a) 11.5 ≤ L < 12.5 — Rounding to the nearest centimetre means L can be up to half a centimetre below or above 12 before it would round to a different whole number. Half of 1 cm is 0.5 cm, so the lower bound is 12 − 0.5 = 11.5 and the upper bound is 12 + 0.5 = 12.5. A value exactly at the upper bound, 12.5, would round up to 13, not 12, so 12.5 itself is excluded, giving 11.5 ≤ L < 12.5. Writing 11.5 ≤ L ≤ 12.5 wrongly includes 12.5 on both ends. Writing 11 ≤ L < 13 uses a whole centimetre either side instead of half a centimetre. Writing 11.5 < L < 12.5 wrongly excludes the lower bound, which is a value that does round to 12.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 750,000,000 — Method: multiplying by 10⁸ moves the decimal point eight places to the right, and every empty place is filled with a zero. Working: 10⁸ = 100,000,000, and moving the decimal point in 7.5 eight places to the right gives 7.5 × 100,000,000. Answer: 750,000,000. The distractors: 7,500,000,000 comes from removing the decimal point first to make 75 and then writing eight zeros after it, which carries the digits one place too far; 600 comes from reading 10⁸ as 10 × 8 = 80 and working out 7.5 × 80; 0.000000075 comes from moving the decimal point eight places to the left, as though the index were negative.
- (c) 0.5, 0.45, −0.09, −0.15, −0.6 — Method: compare the decimals by their position on a number line, remembering that with negative decimals the one closer to zero is larger. Working: 0.5 and 0.45 are positive, so they come first, with 0.5 the larger of the two. Among the negatives, −0.09 is closest to zero, then −0.15, then −0.6 is furthest from zero and so the smallest. Answer: 0.5, 0.45, −0.09, −0.15, −0.6. 0.5, 0.45, −0.15, −0.09, −0.6 swaps −0.09 and −0.15, treating the negative decimal with more digits after the point as closer to zero. −0.6, −0.15, −0.09, 0.45, 0.5 lists the numbers from smallest to largest instead of largest to smallest. 0.5, 0.45, −0.6, −0.15, −0.09 orders the negative decimals by the size of the digit (0.6 > 0.15 > 0.09) as if they were positive, instead of recognising that a bigger negative decimal is further from zero and so smaller.
- (b) 45 — Method: list multiples of each number until one is shared by both, or use 9 = 3² and 15 = 3 × 5, taking the highest power of each prime. Working: multiples of 9 are 9, 18, 27, 36, 45 …; multiples of 15 are 15, 30, 45 …. The lowest multiple in both lists is 45. 135 comes from working out 9 × 15 = 135, the product of the two numbers rather than their lowest common multiple. 3 is the highest common factor of 9 and 15, not the lowest common multiple. 24 comes from working out 9 + 15 = 24, which is not a multiple of either number. Answer: 45.
- (b) 4.05 — Method: line up the decimal points (or place value columns) before adding. Working: 3.60 + 0.45 = 4.05. Answer: 4.05. 3.65 is Priya's answer, from adding the digits without lining up the place value columns, which effectively treats 0.45 as 0.05. 4.5 comes from rounding both numbers up first, 3.6 to 4 and 0.45 to 0.5, and adding those instead of adding the exact values. 0.81 comes from adding the digits 36 and 45 together to get 81, then placing the decimal point in the wrong position.
- (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) 12 — Compare the powers of each prime that appears in both factorisations. In 2² × 3² and 2² × 3 × 7, the prime 2 appears with power 2 in both, and the prime 3 appears with power 2 in one and only power 1 in the other — take the lower power, 3¹. Multiplying the shared primes at their lower powers, 2² × 3, gives 12. Using power 1 for both primes instead of comparing the powers properly, 2 × 3, gives 6, which misses that 2 is common at power 2, not power 1. Multiplying the primes at their higher powers and including 7, which only appears in 84, gives 2² × 3² × 7, which comes to 252 — this is the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. Only spotting that 3 is a common prime and overlooking that 2 is common as well gives 3. So the highest common factor of 36 and 84 is 12.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.