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.
Answer key: Number worksheet — GCSE Foundation
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (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.
- (b) 3 — Method: solving an index equation like this means finding how many factors of the base multiply together to give the number on the right. Working: 4¹ = 4, 4² = 16 and 4³ = 64, so three factors of 4 are needed. Answer: 3. The distractors: 4 comes from listing 4, 16 and 64 and counting the base itself as a step, which gives one more than the index; 6 comes from solving the equation with 2 as the base instead of 4, since 2⁶ = 64; 16 comes from dividing 64 by 4, treating the index as an instruction to divide.
- (a) 1,500 ≤ m < 2,500 — Method: a four-digit figure written to 1 significant figure has been rounded to the nearest 1,000, so the mass lies within half of 1,000, that is 500, of the figure given. Working: 2,000 − 500 = 1,500 and 2,000 + 500 = 2,500. The lower limit is included, because 1,500 kg rounds up to 2,000 kg to 1 significant figure, while 2,500 kg rounds up to 3,000 kg, so the upper limit is not. Answer: 1,500 ≤ m < 2,500. The distractors: 1,950 ≤ m < 2,050 comes from rounding to the nearest 100 instead of to 1 significant figure; 1,000 ≤ m < 3,000 goes a whole 1,000 either side instead of half of it; 1,500 < m ≤ 2,500 has the two limits the wrong way round.
- (a) 0.55, 58%, 3/5 — Converting all three to decimals: 3/5 = 0.6, 0.55 stays as 0.55, and 58% = 0.58. In order from smallest to largest, this is 0.55, then 58%, then 3/5. Writing the numbers in the reverse order, largest to smallest, gives 3/5, 58%, 0.55. Misconverting 3/5 as 0.5 instead of 0.6 makes it appear smaller than both other values, giving the order 3/5, 0.55, 58%. Misconverting 58% as 0.058 instead of 0.58, by moving the decimal point two extra places, makes it appear smallest of the three, giving the order 58%, 0.55, 3/5.
- (c) 0.07 — Each digit after the decimal point has a place value: the first digit is tenths, the second is hundredths, the third is thousandths. In 3.472, the 4 is in the tenths place and the 7 is in the hundredths place, so it is worth 0.07. Reading it as 7 ignores place value altogether, treating it as if it were a whole number. Reading it as 0.7 puts it one place too big, in the tenths place. Reading it as 0.007 puts it one place too small, in the thousandths place. The digit 7 in 3.472 is worth 0.07.
- (d) 12 — Method: if the bracelets are identical and no beads are left over, the number of bracelets must divide exactly into both totals, so it is the highest common factor of 24 and 36. Working: 24 = 2³ × 3 and 36 = 2² × 3²; taking the lower index of each shared prime gives 2² × 3 = 4 × 3 = 12. Each bracelet then has 2 red beads and 3 blue beads. Answer: 12. The distractors: 6 comes from taking each shared prime once rather than at its lower index, giving 2 × 3, which is a common factor but not the highest; 72 is the lowest common multiple of 24 and 36, from taking the higher index of each prime instead of the lower; 60 comes from adding the two bead totals instead of looking for a common factor.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 12 — Method: round the number of pupils to the nearest 10, divide by the number of passengers each minibus can carry, then round up because a part-full minibus still needs a whole vehicle. Working: 179 rounds to 180 (nearest 10); 180 ÷ 16 = 11.25; 11 minibuses only carry 176 passengers, so a 12th minibus is needed for the rest. Answer: 12. 11 comes from rounding 11.25 to the nearest whole number in the usual way, without checking that the leftover pupils still need transporting. 10 comes from rounding 179 down to 170 instead of to the nearest 10, 180. 180 comes from stopping after rounding the number of pupils, without dividing by the number of passengers each minibus carries at all.
- (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.
- (d) 1.2 × 10⁵ — 4 × 3 = 12, and 3 + 1 = 4, giving 12 × 10⁴ — but 12 is not between 1 and 10, so this must be rewritten as 1.2 × 10⁵. Stopping at 12 × 10⁴ without rewriting it leaves the coefficient out of range. Rewriting 12 as 1.2 but leaving the exponent at 4 instead of increasing it to 5 gives 1.2 × 10⁴, which is ten times too small. Adding the coefficients instead of multiplying them gives 4 + 3 = 7, so 7 × 10⁴.
- (a) 42.5 ≤ t < 47.5 — Rounding to the nearest 5 minutes means the actual time can be up to half of 5 minutes, 2.5 minutes, below or above 45 before it would round to a different multiple of 5. The lower bound is 45 − 2.5 = 42.5 and the upper bound is 45 + 2.5 = 47.5. A time of exactly 47.5 minutes would round up to 50, not 45, so 47.5 is excluded while 42.5 does still round to 45. Writing 42.5 ≤ t ≤ 47.5 wrongly includes 47.5. Writing 40 ≤ t < 50 uses a whole rounding unit, 5, either side instead of half of it. Writing 44.5 ≤ t < 45.5 treats the rounding unit as 1 minute instead of 5 minutes.
- (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.
- (a) Yes, because 120 ends in 0 — Method: a whole number divides exactly by 5 when its last digit is 5 or 0, so look at the final digit. Working: the final digit of 120 is 0, so 120 is a multiple of 5; the division confirms it, since 5 × 24 = 120 with nothing left over. Answer: Yes, because 120 ends in 0. The distractors: the option that says yes because 120 is even reaches the right conclusion from the wrong test, since being even is the test for divisibility by 2, and 14 is even but is not a multiple of 5; saying no because 5 does not divide into 12 comes from ignoring the final digit and testing only the leading digits; saying no because the digits add to 3 applies the digit-sum test, which works for 3 and for 9 but not for 5.
- (a) 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means the error interval spans half of 0.1, so 0.05, either side of 8.2: 8.2 − 0.05 = 8.15 and 8.2 + 0.05 = 8.25. The lower bound uses ≤ because 8.15 itself rounds to 8.2, but the upper bound uses < because 8.25 would round up to 8.3. So the error interval is 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25. A candidate who used the wrong rounding band gave 8.1 ≤ y < 8.2. A candidate who used a strict inequality at both ends wrote 8.15 < y < 8.25, wrongly excluding 8.15 itself. A candidate who added the full 0.1 instead of half of it wrote 8.2 ≤ y < 8.3.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.