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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 20 — Method: work out each power separately before subtracting. Working: 6² = 36 and 4² = 16, so 6² − 4² = 36 − 16 = 20. Answer: 20. (4 comes from subtracting first, 6 − 4 = 2, and then squaring that result, instead of squaring each number first. 52 comes from adding the two squares, 36 + 16, instead of subtracting them. 2 comes from subtracting the two numbers, 6 − 4, and forgetting to square at all.)
- (d) −5, −1, 0, 3 — Method: order the numbers by their position on a number line, smallest (furthest left) first. Working: both −5 and −1 lie to the left of 0, and 3 lies to the right of 0. Of the two negatives, −5 is 5 units from zero and −1 is 1 unit from zero, so −5 is further left. Answer: −5, −1, 0, 3. The distractors: 3, 0, −1, −5 is the correct order written the wrong way round, starting with the largest; −1, −5, 0, 3 comes from ordering the two negatives by the size of their digits, so that −1 is treated as the smaller; 0, −1, −5, 3 comes from believing that zero is the smallest number there is and then listing the negatives by their digits.
- (a) 8,350 — Rounding to the nearest 100 means the true number can be up to half of 100, which is 50, below the recorded figure before it would round down to a lower hundred. The smallest possible number is therefore 8,400 − 50 = 8,350. Adding 50 instead of subtracting it gives 8,450, which is the upper end of the interval rather than the smallest value, and 8,450 is not itself possible because it would round up to 8,500. Subtracting a whole 100 instead of half of it gives 8,300, going too far below the recorded value. Subtracting 10 instead of half of the rounding unit gives 8,390, treating the rounding unit as 100 but the tolerance as only 10.
- (c) £7.25 — Find the total cost of the books first: 3 × 4.25 = 12.75, so the books cost £12.75 in total. Subtract this from the £20 note: 20.00 − 12.75 = 7.25, so the change is £7.25. Stopping after finding the cost and not subtracting it from £20 gives £12.75, which is the amount spent, not the change. Borrowing correctly in the pence column but forgetting to reduce the pounds column by 1 gives £8.25 instead of £7.25. Multiplying 3 × 4.25 as 12.25 instead of 12.75, a multiplication slip, makes the change come out £0.50 too high, at £7.75. So Jack receives £7.25 change.
- (a) 12 — Compare the powers of each prime that appears in both factorisations. In 2² × 3² and 2² × 3 × 7, the prime 2 appears with power 2 in both, and the prime 3 appears with power 2 in one and only power 1 in the other — take the lower power, 3¹. Multiplying the shared primes at their lower powers, 2² × 3, gives 12. Using power 1 for both primes instead of comparing the powers properly, 2 × 3, gives 6, which misses that 2 is common at power 2, not power 1. Multiplying the primes at their higher powers and including 7, which only appears in 84, gives 2² × 3² × 7, which comes to 252 — this is the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. Only spotting that 3 is a common prime and overlooking that 2 is common as well gives 3. So the highest common factor of 36 and 84 is 12.
- (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) 1.6 × 10⁵ — 5.6 ÷ 3.5 = 1.6, and 7 − 2 = 5, so the average turnover per shop is 1.6 × 10⁵ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 7 × 2 = 14, so 1.6 × 10¹⁴. Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 7 + 2 = 9, so 1.6 × 10⁹. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 5.6 − 3.5 = 2.1, so 2.1 × 10⁵.
- (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
- (b) 0 > −1 — Method: test each statement by placing both of its numbers on a number line; the greater number is the one further to the right. Working: every negative number lies to the left of zero, so zero is greater than −1. Among the negatives, −3 lies to the right of −5, so −5 is not greater than −3. Answer: 0 > −1. The distractors: −5 > −3 comes from ordering the negatives by the size of their digits, so that 5 makes −5 look the larger; −3 > 0 comes from ignoring the minus sign and comparing 3 with 0; 0 < −1 comes from the belief that zero is the smallest number there is, so that even a negative number is above it.
- (d) 4 13/15 — Convert to fifteenths: 1/5 is equivalent to 3/15 (multiply by 3/3), and 2/3 is equivalent to 10/15 (multiply by 5/5), so 3 1/5 is equivalent to 3 3/15 and 1 2/3 is equivalent to 1 10/15. Add the whole numbers (3 + 1 = 4) and the fractions (3/15 + 10/15 = 13/15), giving 4 13/15. A candidate who adds the numerators and denominators straight across, treating 1/5 + 2/3 as (1+2)/(5+3), gets a fraction part of 3/8, giving 4 3/8. A candidate who adds the fraction parts correctly but forgets to add the second whole number gets 3 13/15. A candidate who adds the whole numbers but copies the first fraction across without ever adding 2/3 to it gets 4 1/5.
- (c) 5 — 0.2 = 1/5, and turning the fraction upside down gives the reciprocal 5/1 = 5. Writing −0.2 mistakes the reciprocal for the negative of the number. Working out 1 − 0.2 = 0.8 mistakes the reciprocal for subtracting the number from 1. Writing 0.5 is the reciprocal of 2, not of 0.2 — a place-value slip that drops the decimal, since 1 ÷ 0.2 = 5 while 1 ÷ 2 = 0.5.
- (d) −8, −3, 0, 2, 5 — Method: place the numbers on a number line and read them from left to right. Working: the negative numbers −8 and −3 come before 0, with −8 further left than −3 because it is further from zero in the negative direction; then 0, then the positive numbers 2 and 5 in increasing size. Answer: −8, −3, 0, 2, 5. −3, −8, 0, 2, 5 swaps −3 and −8, putting the negative number closer to zero first. 5, 2, 0, −3, −8 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. −8, −3, 2, 0, 5 puts 2 before 0, treating positive numbers as if they always come before zero.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.