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) 1/4 — A negative index means the reciprocal of the positive power, so 2⁻² = 1 ÷ 2² = 1/4. Treating the negative sign as making the answer negative instead gives −(2²) = −4. Ignoring the negative sign altogether gives just 2² = 4. Finding the reciprocal correctly but then also applying a negative sign gives −1/4.
- (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
- (b) Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g — Method: a mass shown to the nearest 10 g lies within half of 10 g, that is 5 g, of the figure on the display, so compare the smallest mass the bag can have with the checker's limit of 996 g. Working: 1,000 − 5 = 995, so the actual mass of the bag can be as low as 995 g, and 995 g is below the 996 g limit, so a bag showing 1,000 g on the machine can still be rejected. Answer: Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g. The distractors: 990 g comes from going a whole 10 g below the display instead of half of it; 999.5 g comes from treating the display as being to the nearest gram, when it is to the nearest 10 g; the claim that the mass is exactly 1,000 g treats a rounded display as an exact measurement.
- (b) 2/7 — The comparison asked for is part with part, not part with whole, so the number of cars goes on the bottom. The ratio gives 2 shares of vans for every 7 shares of cars, so the vans are 2/7 of the cars. 2/9 uses the 9 shares in the whole car park as the denominator, 7/2 compares the cars with the vans, and 7/9 is the fraction of the vehicles that are cars.
- (a) 2/5 — Method: find the number of vegetable plots in each allotment, add them, then divide by the total number of plots in both allotments. Working: Allotment A: 3/5 × 20 = 12 vegetable plots. Allotment B: 1/5 × 20 = 4 vegetable plots. Total vegetable plots = 12 + 4 = 16. Total plots = 20 + 20 = 40. Fraction = 16/40 = 2/5. Answer: 2/5. 3/10 comes from using only Allotment A's 12 vegetable plots over the combined total of 40 plots, forgetting to add Allotment B's vegetable plots. 1/5 comes from using only Allotment B's ratio (1:4) as the fraction of vegetables, ignoring Allotment A altogether. 3/5 comes from working out the fraction of the combined plots that grow flowers instead of vegetables.
- (a) 4 — Method: a unit fraction acts as an operator, so finding 1/5 of an amount means dividing that amount by 5. Working: 20 ÷ 5 = 4, so Noah gives away 4 stickers. Answer: 4 stickers. The distractors: 100 comes from multiplying by the denominator instead of dividing by it, giving 20 × 5 = 100; 16 comes from working out how many stickers Noah keeps, the other four fifths of the pack, instead of how many he gives away; 5 comes from writing down the denominator, which is the number of equal groups the pack is split into rather than the size of one group.
- (c) 6.3 × 10⁷ — To add numbers in standard form, first write them with the same power of 10. 6 × 10⁷ = 60 × 10⁶, so the sum is 60 × 10⁶ + 3 × 10⁶ = 63 × 10⁶ = 6.3 × 10⁷. A candidate who added the A values without adjusting for the different powers worked out 6 + 3 = 9 and kept the larger power, writing 9 × 10⁷. A candidate who added the powers of 10 as if multiplying wrote 9 × 10¹³. A candidate who added the A values but used the smaller power wrote 9 × 10⁶.
- (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.
- (d) 40 miles — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure first, then divide to estimate the daily distance. Working: 830 rounds to 800, and 19 rounds to 20, and 800 ÷ 20 = 40, so the estimate is 40 miles per day. 41.5 miles comes from rounding only the number of days and working out 830 ÷ 20 = 41.5, without rounding the distance too. 830 miles is the total distance for the whole trek, given as the answer without dividing by the number of days at all. 4 miles comes from working out 80 ÷ 20 = 4, misplacing a digit in the rounded distance. Answer: 40 miles.
- (b) 88.8 — Multiply as whole numbers first, ignoring the decimal point: 37 × 24. Split it as 37 × 20 = 740 and 37 × 4 = 148, so 37 × 24 = 740 + 148 = 888. 3.7 has 1 decimal place and 24 has none, so the answer needs 1 decimal place: 88.8. Counting the 2 digits in "3.7" as though that were the number of decimal places gives 8.88 instead of 1 decimal place. Leaving the decimal point out altogether gives 888. Misreading 37 × 4 as 138 rather than 148 gives a running total of 878, placed with 1 decimal place as 87.8. So 3.7 × 24 = 88.8.
- (a) 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means the error interval spans half of 0.1, so 0.05, either side of 8.2: 8.2 − 0.05 = 8.15 and 8.2 + 0.05 = 8.25. The lower bound uses ≤ because 8.15 itself rounds to 8.2, but the upper bound uses < because 8.25 would round up to 8.3. So the error interval is 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25. A candidate who used the wrong rounding band gave 8.1 ≤ y < 8.2. A candidate who used a strict inequality at both ends wrote 8.15 < y < 8.25, wrongly excluding 8.15 itself. A candidate who added the full 0.1 instead of half of it wrote 8.2 ≤ y < 8.3.
- (a) to the nearest centimetre — Method: the error interval of a rounded measurement runs from half a unit below the stated value to half a unit above it, so the width of the interval is one whole unit of the accuracy used. Working: the interval runs from 24.5 to 25.5, a width of 25.5 − 24.5 = 1, so the unit of accuracy is 1 cm; the stated value is the midpoint, 25 cm, and 25 correct to the nearest centimetre is exactly what gives 24.5 ≤ L < 25.5. Answer: to the nearest centimetre. To the nearest 0.5 cm comes from reading the half-unit, 0.5, as the accuracy itself instead of doubling it back to the full unit. To 1 decimal place comes from seeing the bounds written with one decimal place and taking that as the accuracy, but the bounds of a value given to 1 decimal place would be only 0.05 either side. To the nearest 10 cm comes from confusing the size of the value, about 25, with the unit it was rounded to; rounding to the nearest 10 cm would give an interval 5 cm either side of the stated value.
- (c) 0.7, 0.72, 3/4 — Method: numbers written in different forms cannot be compared as they stand, so every fraction is turned into a decimal by dividing the numerator by the denominator, and the decimals are then compared place by place from the left. Working: 3/4 means 3 ÷ 4 = 0.75, so the three values to compare are 0.7, 0.75 and 0.72; written to two decimal places they are 0.70, 0.75 and 0.72, and the hundredths digits 0, 5 and 2 put 0.70 first, 0.72 next and 0.75 last; written again in the forms the question used, the order from smallest is 0.7, then 0.72, then 3/4. Answer: 0.7, 0.72, 3/4. The distractors: 3/4, 0.7, 0.72 comes from turning 3/4 into 0.34 by writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point, which makes the fraction the smallest of the three; 0.72, 3/4, 0.7 comes from the belief that the more digits a decimal has the smaller it must be, which puts both 0.72 and 0.75 below 0.7 and 0.72 below 0.75; 3/4, 0.72, 0.7 comes from comparing the three values correctly but listing them largest first, against an instruction to start with the smallest.
- (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.)
- (a) −108 — Method: a power is worked out before any minus sign written in front of it, while a minus sign inside the brackets is part of the base. Working: (−3)⁴ = 81, because four negative factors multiply to a positive result, so −(−3)⁴ = −81. (−3)³ = −27, because three negative factors multiply to a negative result. Adding gives −81 + (−27) = −108. Answer: −108. The distractors: 54 comes from attaching the leading minus sign to the base, working out (−(−3))⁴ = 81 and then adding −27; −54 comes from taking (−3)³ as +27, forgetting that an odd power keeps the negative sign; 108 comes from believing that any power of a negative number is positive and that the leading minus belongs to the base, giving 81 + 27.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.