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
- (d) £4.80 — Method: find the error interval, then check which value falls outside it. Working: half of 20p is 10p, so the actual cost, c, satisfies £4.50 ≤ c < £4.70. £4.80 is above £4.70, so it could not be the actual cost. Answer: £4.80. (£4.50 is a genuine possible cost — it sits at the included lower boundary. £4.65 is a genuine possible cost, below the £4.70 upper boundary. £4.55 is a genuine possible cost, well inside the interval.)
- (a) 2 — Method: systematically try each possible number of 20p coins, starting from one, and check whether the amount left over can be made exactly using whole 10p coins. Working: one 20p coin leaves 40p, made from four 10p coins — valid. Two 20p coins leave 20p, made from two 10p coins — valid. Three 20p coins leave 0p, which needs zero 10p coins — not valid, since at least one 10p coin is required. So there are 2 different ways. Answer: 2. 3 comes from counting the case of three 20p coins and no 10p coins as if it were allowed, even though at least one 10p coin is required. 4 comes from ignoring the 'at least one of each' condition altogether and counting every way of making 60p, including three 20p coins with no 10p coins and six 10p coins with no 20p coins. 1 comes from finding only one of the two valid combinations and stopping the systematic list too early.
- (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) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.
- (c) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
- (c) 9π cm² — The area of a circle is π × r². With a radius of 3 cm this is π × 3² = 9π cm², and this is exact because π has not been replaced by any approximation. Writing 28.3 cm² replaces π with a rounded decimal value, 3.14, and then rounds the result again, so it is only an approximation. Writing 28.26 cm² uses π ≈ 3.14 without a final rounding step, but this is still only an approximation of 9π, not the exact value. Writing 27 cm² comes from replacing π with the rough approximation 3, which is even further from the true value.
- (d) 0.024 cm — Method: significant figures are counted from the first non-zero digit; the zeros in front of it only fix the place value and are not significant. Working: in 0.02384 the first significant figure is 2 and the second is 3, so the rounding is decided by the next digit, 8. As 8 is 5 or more, the second significant figure goes up from 3 to 4, in the same place value. Answer: 0.024 cm. The distractors: 0.023 cm comes from chopping the 84 off instead of rounding it; 0.02 cm comes from counting the leading zeros as significant figures, so the 2 is taken as the second figure and the rounding stops there; 0.0238 cm is 0.02384 correct to 3 significant figures, one figure too many.
- (d) 6π — 4π and 2π are like terms, both multiples of π, so they combine by adding their coefficients: 4 + 2 = 6, giving 6π. Multiplying the coefficients instead of adding them, 4 × 2 = 8, gives 8π. Treating the combination as if the two π's multiplied together as well as the coefficients gives 6π². Dropping the π altogether and adding only the coefficients gives 6.
- (b) 4 m — Blue fabric is 3 parts and this equals 1.5 m, so one part is 1.5 ÷ 3 = 0.5 m. Yellow fabric is 5 parts, so it is 5 × 0.5 = 2.5 m. The total length is 1.5 + 2.5 = 4 m. 2.5 m is the length of yellow fabric only, without adding the blue fabric back in. 1.5 m is just the given length of blue fabric, with the yellow fabric never worked out. 2.4 m comes from swapping the ratio, treating blue as 5 parts and yellow as 3 parts, giving one part as 1.5 ÷ 5 = 0.3 m and yellow as 3 × 0.3 = 0.9 m, then adding 1.5 + 0.9 = 2.4.
- (b) 3 — Method: list all valid two-digit numbers that can be made without starting with 0, then keep only the ones that are multiples of 5. Working: the two-digit numbers possible are 30, 35, 50 and 53. A number is a multiple of 5 only if it ends in 0 or 5: 30 ends in 0, 35 ends in 5, 50 ends in 0, but 53 ends in 3. So there are 3 multiples of 5. Answer: 3. 4 comes from including 53 as a multiple of 5 without checking that its last digit is not 0 or 5. 2 comes from leaving out 50, wrongly assuming 0 cannot be used as the second digit either. 6 comes from listing every two-digit arrangement of the three digits, including ones that start with 0, without applying either restriction.
- (b) No, the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg — Method: find the upper bound of the true mass and compare it with the weight limit. Working: the display is correct to the nearest 5 kg, so half of 5 kg is 2.5 kg, and the true mass, m kg, satisfies 847.5 ≤ m < 852.5. Part of that interval lies above 850 kg, so the parcels are not definitely within the limit. Answer: the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg, which is above the limit. ("Yes, the display reads 850 kg, which is not above the limit" compares the limit with the displayed value instead of with the largest value the true mass could take. "Yes, the true mass is at least 847.5 kg and at most 850 kg" uses the correct half unit below but caps the interval at the limit instead of at 852.5 kg. "No, 850 kg on the display rounds up to 855 kg" wrongly treats the displayed value as if it rounds again.)
- (c) 3 — Method: the index counts how many times the coefficient has been multiplied by 10, which is the number of places the decimal point moves from the end of the number to just after the first significant digit. Working: 2,000 = 2 × 1,000, and 1,000 = 10 × 10 × 10, which is three tens. Answer: 3. The distractors: 4 comes from counting the four digits of 2,000 rather than the three places the decimal point moves; 2 comes from copying the coefficient 2 into the index; −3 comes from making the index negative, which would describe a number smaller than 1 rather than two thousand.
- (c) −2 — On a number line, negative numbers get smaller as their size (ignoring the sign) gets bigger, so −2 is closest to zero and is the largest of the four. A candidate who ignores the negative signs and orders the numbers as if they were positive, largest digit first, would pick −9 as the 'largest'. Continuing that same reversed ranking, the next number in digit order is −7. The number one step further along that same reversed ranking is −4, still short of the true largest value, −2.
- (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) 25 g — Method: substitute the number of years into the model, raise the fraction to that power first, then multiply by the starting mass. Working: with n = 3 the model gives M = 200 × (1/2)³. Since (1/2)³ = 1/8, the mass is 200 ÷ 8 = 25. Answer: 25 g. The distractors: 12.5 g comes from halving four times instead of three, counting the first weighing as a year; 300 g comes from multiplying by 1/2 × 3 = 1.5 instead of raising 1/2 to the power 3; 0.125 g comes from working out (1/2)³ = 0.125 and stopping there, without multiplying by the starting mass.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.