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) 4 × 10⁴ — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, and 6 − 2 = 4, so each project receives 4 × 10⁴ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 × 2 = 12, so 4 × 10¹². Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 + 2 = 8, so 4 × 10⁸. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 8 − 2 = 6, so 6 × 10⁴.
- (b) 63 — 10% of 180 = 18, so 5% = 9. 35% = (3 × 18) + 9 = 54 + 9 = 63. A candidate who uses 25% instead of 35% gets 45. A candidate who doubles 35% to get 70% by mistake gets 126. A candidate who subtracts 35 from 180 instead of finding a percentage gets 145.
- (c) 0.001 — Method: a negative index means 'one over' the positive power, so $10^{-3}$ means one over $10^{3}$. Working: ten cubed is 1000, and one over 1000 is 0.001. 1000 comes from ignoring the negative sign and working out ten cubed instead of its reciprocal. −1000 comes from ignoring what the negative index does to the size, while still writing a negative sign on the large value. −0.001 comes from correctly finding the size, 0.001, but wrongly keeping a negative sign because the index was negative. Answer: 0.001.
- (d) 1 hour 36 minutes — From 09:47 to 10:47 is exactly 1 hour, and from 10:47 to 11:23 is a further 36 minutes, so the journey takes 1 hour 36 minutes in total. Subtracting the hours and minutes separately without carrying across the hour boundary — hours 11 − 9 = 2, minutes 47 − 23 = 24, taking the smaller minute figure from the larger regardless of which time each came from — gives 2 hours 24 minutes. Carrying the hour correctly but then subtracting the minutes the wrong way round, 47 − 23 = 24 instead of 60 − 47 + 23 = 36, gives 1 hour 24 minutes. Counting an extra hour by treating 09:47 as if it were 08:47 gives 2 hours 36 minutes.
- (c) −1 — Method: find each cube root separately, keeping its sign, and then add the two results. Working: (−3) × (−3) × (−3) = −27, so ∛(−27) = −3, and 2 × 2 × 2 = 8, so ∛8 = 2. Adding gives −3 + 2 = −1. Answer: −1. The distractors: 5 comes from taking the cube root of a negative number as positive, giving 3 + 2; −5 comes from reading the minus sign as applying to the whole sum and working out −(3 + 2); −6 comes from multiplying the two roots, −3 × 2, instead of adding them.
- (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.
- (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) 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.)
- (d) 2/25 — Method: write the decimal over 100 using its two decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.08 = 8/100 = 2/25 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 4). Answer: 2/25. The student's fraction, 8/10, comes from ignoring the zero in the tenths column and reading 0.08 as though it were 0.8; it simplifies to 4/5. 1/125 comes from writing the decimal over 1000 instead of 100, as if there were three decimal places. 25/2 comes from flipping the correct fraction upside down.
- (b) £13.48 — Method: an amount of money is written to the nearest penny, which is 2 decimal places, so the calculator display has to be rounded to 2 decimal places. Working: 53.90 ÷ 4 = 13.475, and the digit in the third decimal place is 5, so the penny digit goes up from 7 to 8. Answer: £13.48. The distractors: £13.47 comes from chopping the third decimal place off instead of rounding with it; £13.50 comes from rounding to the nearest 10p rather than to the nearest penny; £13.40 comes from cutting the display short at 1 decimal place, which is both the wrong degree of accuracy and a truncation rather than a rounding.
- (d) 31, which is prime — Method: work out the value, remembering that multiplication comes before addition, then test it for primality by dividing by each prime up to its square root. Working: 2 × 3 × 5 = 30, so the value is 30 + 1 = 31. Since 6² = 36 is larger than 31, only 2, 3 and 5 need testing: 31 is odd, 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder of 1, and 31 does not end in 0 or 5. It therefore has exactly two factors, 1 and itself. Answer: 31, which is prime. The distractors: 30, which is not prime comes from working out 2 × 3 × 5 and forgetting to add the 1; the claim that 31 = 1 × 31 makes it non-prime comes from treating any factor pair as proof, forgetting that a prime is allowed the pair 1 and itself; the claim that 31 is a multiple of 3 comes from assuming that a number containing the digit 3 divides by 3, when in fact 31 ÷ 3 leaves a remainder.
- (b) 45 — Method: list multiples of each number until one is shared by both, or use 9 = 3² and 15 = 3 × 5, taking the highest power of each prime. Working: multiples of 9 are 9, 18, 27, 36, 45 …; multiples of 15 are 15, 30, 45 …. The lowest multiple in both lists is 45. 135 comes from working out 9 × 15 = 135, the product of the two numbers rather than their lowest common multiple. 3 is the highest common factor of 9 and 15, not the lowest common multiple. 24 comes from working out 9 + 15 = 24, which is not a multiple of either number. Answer: 45.
- (c) 0.36 — Method: convert the fraction to an equivalent fraction with denominator 100, then read off the decimal. Working: 9/25 = 36/100 (multiplying numerator and denominator by 4) = 0.36. Answer: 0.36. 2.8 comes from flipping the fraction and dividing the denominator by the numerator instead: 25 ÷ 9 = 2.77…, rounded to 2.8. 0.925 comes from writing the digits of the numerator and denominator directly after the decimal point without scaling the fraction. 0.9 comes from writing the numerator straight after the decimal point, as if the denominator were 10 rather than 25.
- (c) 9/5 — Method: the area of a rectangle is its length multiplied by its width; the decimal product is then written over a power of ten and cancelled. Working: 24 × 75 = 1800, and 2.4 and 0.75 have three decimal places between them, so 2.4 × 0.75 = 1.8; the area of the panel is 1.8 square metres, which is eighteen tenths, so it can be written as 18/10, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 2 gives 9 over 5. Answer: 9/5. The distractors: 4/5 comes from converting only the digits after the decimal point and losing the whole one, turning 1.8 into eight tenths; 63/20 comes from adding the two sides instead of multiplying them, giving 3.15; 9/50 comes from misplacing the decimal point in the product and writing 0.18, which cancels to 9 over 50.
- (c) £4.05 — The total cost is 7 × 85p = £5.95. Josh's change is £10.00 − £5.95 = £4.05. Taking off the pounds and then only the 5p digit, £10.00 − £5.00 = £5.00 followed by £5.00 − £0.05, ignoring the 90p altogether, gives £4.95. Rounding the cost up to £6.00 and never accounting for the extra 5p at all gives £4.00. Multiplying 7 × 85 incorrectly as 605 (a slip in 7 × 5) gives a total cost of £6.05, and correctly subtracting that from £10.00 gives £3.95.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.