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) 4,000 nanometres — Method: the number of nanometres is the diameter divided by the length of one nanometre, and dividing powers of ten means subtracting the indices. Working: −6 − (−9) = 3, so 10⁻⁶ ÷ 10⁻⁹ = 10³, and the diameter is 4 × 10³ nanometres. Answer: 4,000 nanometres. The distractors: 400 nanometres comes from taking the difference between the indices as 2 instead of 3; 4 nanometres comes from changing the name of the unit without converting, leaving the coefficient untouched; 0.004 nanometres comes from dividing by 10³ instead of multiplying by it, as though a nanometre were the larger of the two units.
- (b) 0.3, 32%, 7/20 — Method: convert every number to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale. Working: 7/20 = 0.35, 0.3 stays as 0.3, and 32% = 0.32. Comparing 0.3, 0.32 and 0.35 in size gives the order 0.3, then 0.32, then 0.35. Answer: 0.3, 32%, 7/20. 7/20, 32%, 0.3 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. 0.3, 7/20, 32% swaps 32% and 7/20, treating the fraction 7/20 as smaller even though 7/20 = 0.35 is bigger than 32% = 0.32. 32%, 0.3, 7/20 comes from moving the digits one place too far when converting the percentage, giving 0.032 instead of 0.32, which makes 32% look far smaller than it really is.
- (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.
- (b) 2 — Method: the cube root of a number is the value that multiplies by itself three times to give that number. Working: 2 × 2 × 2 = 8, so ∛8 = 2. 4 comes from working out 8 ÷ 2 = 4, halving the number instead of finding its cube root. 24 comes from working out 8 × 3 = 24, multiplying by 3 instead of cube-rooting it. 64 is 8², the square of 8, not its cube root. Answer: 2.
- (b) 18.5 ≤ T < 18.7 — Method: the error interval reaches half the rounding unit either side of the recorded value. Working: half of 0.2 is 0.1, so the interval runs from 18.6 − 0.1 to 18.6 + 0.1. Answer: 18.5 ≤ T < 18.7. (18.4 ≤ T < 18.8 comes from using the full rounding unit, 0.2, either side instead of half of it. 18.5 ≤ T ≤ 18.7 comes from including the upper bound with ≤ instead of excluding it with <. 18.6 ≤ T < 18.8 comes from treating the recorded value as the start of the interval and adding the whole rounding unit, 0.2, above it.)
- (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide. Working: 397 rounds to 400 and 21 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 400 ÷ 20 = 20. Answer: 20. The distractors: 19 comes from not estimating at all, since 397 ÷ 21 = 18.9 to 1 decimal place, which rounds to 19, while the question asks for an estimate from rounded numbers; 200 comes from dividing 400 by 2 instead of by 20, losing the place value of the rounded divisor; 2 comes from dividing the leading digits only and losing the place value of both numbers.
- (b) 88.8 — Multiply as whole numbers first, ignoring the decimal point: 37 × 24. Split it as 37 × 20 = 740 and 37 × 4 = 148, so 37 × 24 = 740 + 148 = 888. 3.7 has 1 decimal place and 24 has none, so the answer needs 1 decimal place: 88.8. Counting the 2 digits in "3.7" as though that were the number of decimal places gives 8.88 instead of 1 decimal place. Leaving the decimal point out altogether gives 888. Misreading 37 × 4 as 138 rather than 148 gives a running total of 878, placed with 1 decimal place as 87.8. So 3.7 × 24 = 88.8.
- (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
- (b) 90 km/h — To convert metres per second to kilometres per hour, multiply by 3.6 (there are 3600 seconds in an hour and 1000 metres in a kilometre, and 3600 ÷ 1000 = 3.6): 25 × 3.6 = 90 km/h. Dividing by 3.6 instead of multiplying gives 25 ÷ 3.6 = 6.9 km/h (to 1 d.p.). Multiplying by 60 instead of 3.6, confusing the conversion from seconds to minutes with the conversion to hours, gives 25 × 60 = 1500 km/h. Multiplying by 3600 to convert seconds to hours but forgetting to convert metres to kilometres gives 25 × 3600 = 90000, which is a speed in metres per hour, not kilometres per hour.
- (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.
- (c) 590 — To round to the nearest 10, decide which multiple of 10 the number is nearer to. 592.5 lies between 590 and 600. It is 592.5 − 590 = 2.5 above 590, but 600 − 592.5 = 7.5 below 600, so it is much nearer to 590. Equivalently, the units digit is 2, and 2 is less than 5, so round down: 592.5 rounds to 590. A candidate who wrote 600 rounded up because of the 5 in the tenths place, but that digit decides rounding to the nearest whole number, not to the nearest 10 — the units digit is what matters here. A candidate who wrote 595 rounded to the nearest 5 instead of the nearest 10. A candidate who wrote 500 cut the number down to its hundreds digit instead of rounding to the nearest 10.
- (c) 0.7, 0.72, 3/4 — Method: numbers written in different forms cannot be compared as they stand, so every fraction is turned into a decimal by dividing the numerator by the denominator, and the decimals are then compared place by place from the left. Working: 3/4 means 3 ÷ 4 = 0.75, so the three values to compare are 0.7, 0.75 and 0.72; written to two decimal places they are 0.70, 0.75 and 0.72, and the hundredths digits 0, 5 and 2 put 0.70 first, 0.72 next and 0.75 last; written again in the forms the question used, the order from smallest is 0.7, then 0.72, then 3/4. Answer: 0.7, 0.72, 3/4. The distractors: 3/4, 0.7, 0.72 comes from turning 3/4 into 0.34 by writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point, which makes the fraction the smallest of the three; 0.72, 3/4, 0.7 comes from the belief that the more digits a decimal has the smaller it must be, which puts both 0.72 and 0.75 below 0.7 and 0.72 below 0.75; 3/4, 0.72, 0.7 comes from comparing the three values correctly but listing them largest first, against an instruction to start with the smallest.
- (d) 30 kg — Round 0.485 kg to 1 significant figure: 0.5 kg. Multiply by the 60 cakes: 0.5 × 60 = 30 kg. A candidate who rounded to 2 significant figures instead of 1 used 0.49 kg, giving 0.49 × 60 = 29.4 kg. A candidate who used the unrounded amount instead of the estimate worked out 0.485 × 60 = 29.1 kg. A candidate who rounded 0.485 down to 0.4 kg instead of up to 0.5 kg worked out 0.4 × 60 = 24 kg.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.