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) 36 — Method: set the outcomes out in a grid with one die along the top and the other down the side, so that every cell of the grid is one outcome, and count the cells. Working: the red die can land in 6 ways, so the grid has 6 columns, and the blue die can also land in 6 ways, so the grid has 6 rows; the number of cells is 6 × 6 = 36. Answer: 36. The distractors: 12 comes from adding 6 and 6 instead of multiplying them; 6 comes from counting the outcomes of a single die and forgetting that the second die also has to land; 21 comes from treating the two dice as indistinguishable, so that a red 2 with a blue 3 and a red 3 with a blue 2 are counted as one outcome.
- (a) 4 — Method: a unit fraction acts as an operator, so finding 1/5 of an amount means dividing that amount by 5. Working: 20 ÷ 5 = 4, so Noah gives away 4 stickers. Answer: 4 stickers. The distractors: 100 comes from multiplying by the denominator instead of dividing by it, giving 20 × 5 = 100; 16 comes from working out how many stickers Noah keeps, the other four fifths of the pack, instead of how many he gives away; 5 comes from writing down the denominator, which is the number of equal groups the pack is split into rather than the size of one group.
- (b) 4,700 — To round to the nearest 100, look at the digit in the tens column, which decides whether the hundreds column rounds up or stays the same. In 4,685 that digit is 8, and since 8 is 5 or more, the 6 in the hundreds column rounds up to 7, giving 4,700. Simply changing the last two digits to zero without checking the tens digit gives 4,600, which rounds down when it should round up. Rounding to the nearest 10 instead of the nearest 100 gives 4,690. Rounding to the nearest 1,000 instead gives 5,000, one place value too coarse.
- (a) 225 — Method: brackets are worked out before powers, so multiply the two numbers first and then square the result. Working: 3 × 5 = 15, and 15² = 15 × 15 = 225. Answer: 225. The distractors: 30 comes from doubling 15 instead of squaring it; 75 comes from squaring only the 5 and then working out 3 × 25; 34 comes from squaring each number separately and adding, 9 + 25, instead of multiplying inside the brackets first.
- (c) 2.6 × 10⁵ — In standard form, A must satisfy 1 ≤ A < 10. Moving the decimal point in 260,000 to just after the 2 gives A = 2.6, and the decimal point moved 5 places, so 260,000 = 2.6 × 10⁵. A candidate who wrote 26 × 10⁴ used a value of A outside the required range, even though it has the same overall value. A candidate who wrote 2.6 × 10⁶ counted one place too many when moving the decimal point. A candidate who wrote 0.26 × 10⁶ used a value of A below 1, again outside the required range.
- (d) 10 — Method: list the pairs systematically, taking each sweet in turn and pairing it only with the sweets that come after it, so that no pair is written down twice. Working: numbering the sweets 1 to 5, the first sweet pairs with 4 others, the second pairs with 3 sweets that come after it, the third with 2 and the fourth with 1, so the total is 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 20 comes from working out 5 × 4 and never halving, which counts each pair twice, once in each order; 25 comes from working out 5 × 5, which allows the same sweet to be chosen twice; 9 comes from adding the 5 choices and the 4 remaining choices instead of combining them as a selection of two.
- (c) −28 — 6² = 36 and 4³ = 64. Work out 36 − 64 = −28. A candidate who subtracts in the wrong order gets 64 − 36 = 28. A candidate who adds instead of subtracting gets 36 + 64 = 100. A candidate who multiplies the base by the exponent instead of raising the power (6 × 2 − 4 × 3 = 12 − 12) gets 0.
- (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.
- (d) x⁴ — Method: dividing two powers of the same letter subtracts the index of the divisor from the index of the term being divided. Working: six factors of x on the top and two on the bottom cancel in pairs, leaving 6 − 2 = 4 factors of x. Answer: x⁴. The distractors: x³ comes from dividing the indices, 6 ÷ 2, instead of subtracting them; x⁸ comes from adding the indices, 6 + 2, as though the powers were being multiplied; x¹² comes from multiplying the indices, 6 × 2, as though a power were being raised to a power.
- (b) 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3 — Truncating simply cuts off the digits after the required decimal place instead of rounding them, so every value from 6.2 up to (but not reaching) 6.3 truncates to 6.2. This gives the error interval 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3, with no allowance made on the lower side because truncation never rounds a smaller value up into this interval. Using 6.15 ≤ x < 6.25 applies the rounding rule of going half a unit either side, which does not apply to truncation. Writing 6.1 < x ≤ 6.2 puts the interval below 6.2 instead of above it. Writing 6.2 ≤ x ≤ 6.3 wrongly includes 6.3, which truncates down to itself, not to 6.2.
- (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) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
- (c) −5 ≤ −5 — The symbol ≤ means 'less than or equal to', and −5 is equal to −5, so this statement is true. −3 ≥ −1 is false: a candidate who ignores the negative signs and compares 3 with 1 would wrongly think −3 is the bigger number, but on the number line −3 is smaller than −1. 0.4 < 2/5 is false because 2/5 converts to exactly 0.4, so the two values are equal, not one strictly less than the other — a candidate who assumes a fraction is automatically bigger than a similar-looking decimal without converting it would miss this. 7/10 ≤ 0.6 is false because 7/10 converts to 0.7, which is bigger than 0.6; a candidate who misplaces the decimal point and converts 7/10 as 0.07 would wrongly believe this statement is true.
- (c) 5 × 10⁻³ — Method: in standard form the coefficient must be at least 1 and less than 10, and for a number smaller than 1 the index is negative and counts the places the decimal point moves to the right. Working: the only significant digit is 5, so the coefficient is 5; moving the decimal point in 0.005 three places to the right gives 5, so the index is −3. Answer: 5 × 10⁻³. The distractors: 0.5 × 10⁻² is the same value written the wrong way, because 0.5 is smaller than 1 and so is not an allowed coefficient; 5 × 10⁻² comes from counting the two zeros after the decimal point instead of the three places the point moves; 5 × 10³ comes from taking the index as positive, which describes a number in the thousands rather than one smaller than 1.
- (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.