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) 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.
- (c) 11 — Method: work out the total number of combinations as if there were no restriction, then subtract the one combination that is not allowed. Working: without any restriction there are 4 backdrops × 3 outfits = 12 combinations. The grey backdrop with the formal suit is not allowed, removing 1 combination: 12 − 1 = 11. Answer: 11. 12 comes from forgetting to remove the combination that is not allowed. 8 comes from removing the entire formal suit outfit from the count instead of just the one combination with the grey backdrop. 10 comes from removing two combinations instead of just the one that is not allowed.
- (d) 3/8 — Method: making half the recipe means dividing the quantity of sugar by 2. Working: 3/4 ÷ 2 = 3/8. Answer: 3/8. 3/2 comes from multiplying by 2 instead of dividing, as if doubling the recipe. 5/4 comes from adding 1/2 to 3/4 instead of halving it, confusing "half of" with "plus a half". 3/4 comes from leaving the amount unchanged, forgetting to halve it for the smaller recipe.
- (d) 9 — Method: split into two cases — the soups with no restriction, and the mushroom soup on its own — then add the totals. Working: the 2 soups other than mushroom can be paired with any of the 4 sandwiches: 2 × 4 = 8. The mushroom soup can only be paired with the cheese sandwich: 1 combination. Total = 8 + 1 = 9. Answer: 9. 12 comes from working out 3 × 4 = 12 without applying the restriction at all. 8 comes from correctly finding the 2 unrestricted soups' 8 combinations, but forgetting to add back the 1 allowed mushroom-and-cheese combination. 11 comes from taking the unrestricted total of 12 and removing only 1 mushroom combination instead of all 3 disallowed ones.
- (b) 400 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 812 rounds to 800 (nearest 100) and 397 rounds to 400 (nearest 100). 800 − 400 = 400. Answer: 400. 500 comes from rounding 397 down to 300 instead of up to the nearest 100, 400. 300 comes from rounding 812 down to 700 instead of up to the nearest 100, 800. 415 is the exact value of 812 − 397, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate — the spreadsheet's answer of 315 is too far from the estimate of 400 to be correct.
- (c) 3 × 10⁶ — Daily revenue = (4 × 10³) × 2.5 = 1 × 10⁴ (£10,000). Multiplying by the number of days, (3 × 10²), gives annual revenue = (1 × 10⁴) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁶ (£3,000,000). A candidate who forgot to multiply by the price and just multiplied the number of items by the number of days worked out (4 × 10³) × (3 × 10²) = 1.2 × 10⁶. A candidate who added the number of days to the daily revenue instead of multiplying worked out 1 × 10⁴ + 3 × 10² = 1.03 × 10⁴. A candidate who misread £2.50 as £25 worked out a daily revenue of (4 × 10³) × 25 = 1 × 10⁵, giving an annual total of (1 × 10⁵) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁷.
- (d) 6 — Method: the square root of a product can be found either by multiplying first and then rooting, or by rooting each factor and multiplying the two roots together. Working: 4 × 9 = 36, and 6 × 6 = 36, so the root is 6; the same value comes from √4 × √9 = 2 × 3. Answer: 6. The distractors: 36 comes from multiplying inside the root and then leaving the root untaken; 5 comes from rooting each factor and adding the results, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; 18 comes from rooting the 4 only and leaving the 9 untouched, giving 2 × 9.
- (c) 6000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 312 rounds to 300 (1 s.f.) and 19 rounds to 20 (1 s.f.). 300 × 20 = 6000. Answer: 6000. 5928 is the exact value of 312 × 19, found by multiplying without rounding first, which is not an estimate. 600 comes from rounding 19 down to 2 instead of to 20, losing a zero from its place value. 6200 comes from rounding 312 to the nearest 10, 310, instead of to 1 significant figure, 300, then multiplying by the correctly rounded 20.
- (b) 1 — Any non-zero number raised to the power 0 equals 1, so 7⁰ = 1. Writing 0 confuses this rule with multiplying by zero. Writing 7 mistakes the power of 0 for leaving the base unchanged, as if nothing happened. Writing 1/7 confuses the zero index with a negative one — it is 7⁻¹ that equals 1/7, while 7⁰ equals 1.
- (c) 0.0065 — Leading zeros are never significant, so counting from the first non-zero digit, the first two significant figures of 0.006482 are 6 and 4. Look at the next digit along, 8, to decide whether the second figure rounds up: since 8 is 5 or more, the 4 rounds up to 5, giving 0.0065. Rounding to 2 decimal places instead of 2 significant figures gives 0.01, which answers a different question. Wrongly counting one of the leading zeros as a significant figure and stopping one figure short gives 0.006. Keeping an extra digit, as in 0.00648, gives 3 significant figures rather than 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) 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.
- (a) 40 — Multiply the number of choices for each item: 4 × 5 × 2 = 40. 11 comes from adding the three numbers instead of multiplying them. 20 comes from multiplying only the crisps and chocolate bars, 4 × 5, and forgetting the drink. 10 comes from multiplying only the chocolate bars and drinks, 5 × 2, and forgetting the crisps.
- (a) 1/3 — Method: find the total fraction eaten, then subtract it from the whole pizza. Working: together they eat 5/12 + 3/12 = 8/12, so the fraction left is 12/12 − 8/12 = 4/12 = 1/3. Answer: 1/3. 2/3 comes from giving the fraction eaten instead of the fraction left. 7/12 comes from only subtracting Ben's slices and forgetting Mia's. 1/2 comes from comparing the 4 slices left with the 8 slices eaten, 4/8, a part-to-part comparison instead of comparing with the whole pizza of 12 slices.
- (c) 3:4 — The jacket costs 3/7 of £84, which is 3 × (84 ÷ 7) = 3 × 12 = £36. The bag then costs the rest of the money, £84 − £36 = £48. The ratio of the jacket to the bag is 36:48, which simplifies to 3:4. Writing the fraction spent on the jacket, 3/7, directly as the ratio, without working out that the bag's share is the remaining 4/7, gives 3:7. Giving the ratio the wrong way round, bag to jacket instead of jacket to bag, gives 4:3. Assuming the jacket and bag cost the same, ignoring the fraction given, gives 1:1.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.