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
- (c) 0.94 — Method: a fraction is written as a decimal by making the denominator a power of ten, because the decimal places record tenths, hundredths and thousandths. Working: 50 × 2 = 100, so the numerator must also be multiplied by 2, giving 47 × 2 = 94 and the equivalent fraction 94/100; 94 hundredths is written with two digits after the decimal point. Answer: 0.94. The distractors: 0.47 comes from treating the denominator as though it were already 100 and writing the digits of the numerator straight after the point; 4.7 comes from dividing 47 by 10 instead of by 50; 0.094 comes from multiplying the denominator by 20 to reach 1000 but the numerator by only 2, giving 94/1000.
- (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.
- (c) 0.024 — Multiply the digits ignoring the decimal points: 6 × 4 = 24. Count the total number of decimal places in the two numbers being multiplied: 0.6 has 1 decimal place and 0.04 has 2, giving 3 in total. Place the decimal point in 24 so that there are 3 digits after it: 0.024. Counting only 2 decimal places instead of 3 gives 0.24. Counting 4 decimal places instead of 3 gives 0.0024. Counting only 1 decimal place instead of 3 — in effect moving the point in just one of the two numbers, as if the calculation were 6 × 0.4 — gives 2.4. So 0.6 × 0.04 = 0.024.
- (a) 5 — Method: each index is worked out first, and subtracting a negative number is the same as adding the positive. Working: (−2)³ = (−2) × (−2) × (−2) = −8 and (−3)² = (−3) × (−3) = 9, while − (−4) becomes + 4, so the calculation becomes −8 + 9 + 4 = 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: −13 comes from taking (−3)² as −9, giving −8 − 9 + 4 = −13; −3 comes from reading − (−4) as − 4, giving −8 + 9 − 4 = −3; 21 comes from treating every power of a negative number as positive, so that (−2)³ is taken as 8 and the calculation becomes 8 + 9 + 4 = 21.
- (a) 6 × 10² metres — Method: distance = speed × time, so multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 3 × 2 = 6 for the coefficients, and 8 + (−6) = 2 for the indices; 6 lies between 1 and 10, so the coefficient needs no adjustment. Answer: 6 × 10² metres, which is 600 metres. The distractors: 5 × 10² metres comes from adding the coefficients, 3 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 6 × 10¹⁴ metres comes from subtracting the indices, 8 − (−6), which is the rule for dividing rather than for multiplying; 6 × 10⁻⁴⁸ metres comes from multiplying the indices, 8 × (−6), instead of adding them.
- (c) 7 — Method: a square root asks which positive number multiplied by itself gives the number under the root sign, so work up through the square numbers until one of them is 49. Working: 5 × 5 = 25, 6 × 6 = 36 and 7 × 7 = 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 9 comes from recalling the wrong square fact and pairing 49 with 9, when 9 × 9 = 81; 24.5 comes from treating a square root as a halving and working out 49 ÷ 2; 2401 comes from squaring 49 instead of square-rooting it, applying the inverse operation the wrong way round.
- (b) £96.90 — Method: multiply the number of units by the cost per unit, then convert the result from pence to pounds. Working: 340 × 28.5p = 9690p; converting to pounds, 9690p ÷ 100 = £96.90. Answer: £96.90. £969.00 comes from misplacing the decimal point when converting pence to pounds, dividing by 10 instead of 100. £9.69 comes from misplacing the decimal point the other way, dividing by 1000 instead of 100. £102.00 comes from rounding the rate to 30p per unit before multiplying.
- (a) 2/5 — The ratio 2:3 has 2 + 3 = 5 parts in total, and the larger plot is 3 of those parts. Since the larger plot is 18 m², each part is 18 ÷ 3 = 6 m², so the total area is 5 × 6 = 30 m² and the smaller plot is 2 × 6 = 12 m². The fraction of the total area taken up by the smaller plot is 12/30, which simplifies to 2/5. Giving the fraction for the larger plot instead of the smaller one gives 3/5. Comparing the smaller plot to the larger plot instead of to the total area gives 2/3. Assuming the two plots split the area evenly, ignoring the given ratio altogether, gives 1/2.
- (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) −1.4, −6/5, 0, 5/4, 1.3 — Method: convert the fractions 5/4 and −6/5 to decimals so every number is written the same way, then compare all five decimals. Working: 5/4 = 1.25 and −6/5 = −1.2. Comparing −1.4, −1.2, 0, 1.25 and 1.3 in size gives the order −1.4, −1.2, 0, 1.25, 1.3. Answer: −1.4, −6/5, 0, 5/4, 1.3. −6/5, −1.4, 0, 5/4, 1.3 swaps the two negative numbers, treating −6/5 as more negative than −1.4 even though −1.2 is closer to zero than −1.4. 1.3, 5/4, 0, −6/5, −1.4 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. −1.4, −6/5, 0, 1.3, 5/4 swaps 5/4 and 1.3, comparing the numerator 5 directly with 1.3 instead of converting 5/4 to the decimal 1.25 first.
- (d) 1,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 49 rounds to 50 and 21 rounds to 20, and 50 × 20 = 1,000 because 5 × 2 = 10 and the two rounded numbers carry one zero each. Answer: 1,000. The distractors: 800 comes from rounding 49 down to 40 instead of to the nearest ten; 1,500 comes from rounding 21 up to 30 rather than down to 20; 1,029 is the exact product 49 × 21, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
- (a) 120 — For the lowest common multiple, take each prime that appears in either factorisation, raised to the higher power. In 2³ × 3 and 2² × 3 × 5, the prime 2 appears with power 3 in one and power 2 in the other — take the higher, 2³; the prime 3 appears with the same power in both, 3¹; and the prime 5 appears only in the second factorisation, so use 5¹. Multiplying these, 2³ × 3 × 5, gives 120. Taking the lower power of 2 instead of the higher, and leaving out 5 altogether, gives the highest common factor, 12, instead. Multiplying the two original numbers together, 24 × 60, gives 1440, which double-counts every shared prime factor. Assuming the lowest common multiple is simply the larger of the two numbers gives 60, but 60 is not a multiple of 24 — 60 ÷ 24 does not divide exactly. So the lowest common multiple of 24 and 60 is 120.
- (a) 5 — 16 + 9 = 25, then √25 = 5. Splitting the root over the addition instead gives √16 = 4 and √9 = 3, then 4 + 3 = 7 — but a root does not split over a sum like this. Multiplying those two roots instead of adding them gives 4 × 3 = 12. Taking the negative square root instead of the positive one gives −5.
- (c) > — Method: write both fractions with a common denominator so they can be compared directly. Working: −2/3 = −4/6. Comparing −4/6 and −5/6, −4 is greater than −5, so −4/6 is greater than −5/6. Answer: −2/3 > −5/6, so the symbol is >. < comes from treating the fraction with the larger numerator and denominator, 5/6, as the greater number, ignoring that both fractions are negative. = comes from assuming the fractions must be equal because they look similar in size. ≤ combines < (false) with = (false).
- (b) 31 — Method: a prime number has exactly two factors, 1 and itself, so check each number between 30 and 40 for other factors. Working: 3 × 11 = 33, so 33 is not prime. 2 × 17 = 34, so 34 is not prime. 4 × 9 = 36, so 36 is not prime. 31 has no factors other than 1 and 31, so it is prime. Answer: 31.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.