Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Translations and reflections of graphs worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions on "translations and reflections of graphs" — DfE statement A13. Print it, or print three versions so neighbours cannot copy by letter; the key gives the letter for each version.
Higher onlyNon-calculator
Answer key: Translations and reflections of graphs worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (d) x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, 12) — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis, to get y = −f(x), negates every y-value but leaves every x-value fixed. The x-intercepts happen where y = 0, and −0 = 0, so they are unaffected: y = −f(x) still crosses the x-axis at x = −2 and x = 6. The y-intercept is the value at x = 0: f(0) = −12, so −f(0) = 12, giving the point (0, 12) — the sign flips because the y-intercept is a nonzero y-value, unlike the roots. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from confusing −f(x) with f(−x) — reflecting in the y-axis instead of the x-axis, which negates the x-values of the intercepts (turning −2 into 2 and 6 into −6) but leaves f(0) unchanged, since f(−0) = f(0) = −12. Writing 'x = −2, x = 6; y-intercept (0, −12)' comes from forgetting that −f(x) is a reflection at all, and assumes both intercepts stay exactly as they were. Writing 'x = 2, x = −6; y-intercept (0, 12)' correctly negates the y-intercept but wrongly negates the x-intercepts too, as if a reflection in the x-axis also flipped the sign of every x-value.
- (d) y = −f(x + 2) has a maximum turning point at (1, 5). — y = f(x + 2) translates the graph 2 units in the negative x-direction, so the turning point's x-coordinate moves from 3 to 1; reflecting in the x-axis then negates the y-coordinate, turning −5 into 5, and also turns a minimum into a maximum — giving a true maximum turning point at (1, 5). Translating the root at x = 1 in the wrong direction, adding 2 instead of subtracting it, gives x = 3, but the true image root is at 1 − 2 = −1, so that statement is false. Keeping the coordinates (1, 5) correct but forgetting that reflecting in the x-axis turns a minimum into a maximum gives a false "minimum turning point" statement. Getting the reflection's effect on the turning-point type right (a maximum) but translating the x-coordinate in the wrong direction, using 3 + 2 = 5 instead of 3 − 2 = 1, gives a false statement at (5, 5).
- (a) Positive x-direction, 90°; image is y = sin x. — Writing cos(x − 90°) as cos(x − a) with a = 90 shows this is a horizontal translation, y = f(x − a), which moves the graph 90° in the positive x-direction; the identity cos(x − 90°) = sin x confirms the image is y = sin x. Choosing the negative x-direction reverses the sign inside the bracket — subtracting inside the bracket always translates in the positive x-direction, not the negative one, so that statement is wrong on direction. Getting the direction right but conflating the subtraction inside the bracket with an extra reflection of the output flips the sign of the resulting graph, wrongly giving y = −sin x. Treating the subtraction as if it changed the output directly, rather than the input, wrongly calls this a vertical translation even while still correctly recalling that the image simplifies to y = sin x.
- (a) y = 2ˣ + 3 — A translation of 3 units in the positive y-direction shifts the whole graph up, which means adding to the output: y = f(x) + k with k = 3, so the image is y = 2ˣ + 3. Adding the 3 inside the power instead of outside it, which translates the graph horizontally instead of vertically, gives y = 2ˣ⁺³. Using a negative 3, which moves the graph down instead of up, gives y = 2ˣ − 3. Mistaking 2ˣ for the linear expression 2x and adding 3 inside brackets gives y = 2(x + 3).
- (c) Week 16, £37,000 — y = f(x − 6) − 8000 combines a horizontal translation of 6 units RIGHT (subtracting 6 inside the brackets) with a vertical translation of £8000 DOWN (subtracting 8000 outside). Applying both to the maximum (10, 45000): 10 + 6 = 16, so the new maximum is in week 16. And 45000 − 8000 = 37000, so the maximum weekly profit is £37,000.
- (c) A reflection in the y-axis — Replacing x with −x reflects the graph in the y-axis: each point (x, y) maps to (−x, y). Reflecting the OUTPUT instead, y = −f(x), gives a reflection in the x-axis — that is a different function. Combining both reflections gives a rotation of 180° about the origin, and reflecting in the line y = x swaps the x- and y-values, which is what produces the inverse function, not f(−x). Check first which side of f the minus sign sits on.
- (a) y = −x³ + 5x — Reflecting a graph in the y-axis replaces every x in the equation with −x: y = (−x)³ − 5(−x) = −x³ + 5x. Writing y = −x³ − 5x comes from substituting −x into the x³ term only and leaving the −5x term as it was. Writing y = x³ + 5x comes from substituting −x into the −5x term only and leaving the x³ term as it was. Writing y = x³ − 5x is the original equation with no reflection applied at all — every term needs the substitution, not just one of them.
- (b) 6 — Reflecting y = f(x) in the x-axis turns the minimum point (2, −3) into a maximum point at (2, 3), since −f(x) negates every y-value: −(−3) = 3. Adding a then gives 3 + a = 9, so a = 9 − 3 = 6. Forgetting the reflection and using the original y-value of −3 gives −3 + a = 9, so a = 12 — this ignores that −f(x) changes the sign of the y-coordinate before a is added. Writing a = −12 comes from subtracting in the wrong order, working out 9 − (−3) as −3 − 9 instead. Writing a = −6 comes from taking the negative of the correct answer, as if the final value of a needed to be reflected too, on top of the turning point.
- (d) Reflect in the y-axis, +2 in x; roots 3, −2 — f(2 − x) is zero exactly when 2 − x equals one of f's roots: 2 − x = −1 or 2 − x = 4. Solving each correctly (x = 2 − (−1) = 3, and x = 2 − 4 = −2) gives the new roots x = 3 and x = −2. This is the same as reflecting y = f(x) in the y-axis to get f(−x), then translating 2 units in the positive x-direction to get f(−(x − 2)) = f(2 − x). Solving 2 − x = k as x = k − 2 instead of x = 2 − k is a sign slip when rearranging, and gives x = −3 and x = 2. Translating +2 in x with no reflection at all uses f(x − 2), whose roots are the original roots plus 2: x = 1 and x = 6 — this misses the reflection completely. Assuming 'no overall change' wrongly treats a reflection-and-translation pair as always cancelling out, when here the roots genuinely move, from x = −1 and x = 4 to x = 3 and x = −2.
- (a) x = 2, x = 7; y-intercept cannot be found here — Translating y = f(x) to y = f(x − 3) shifts the graph 3 units to the right, so each root increases by 3: x = −1 becomes x = 2, and x = 4 becomes x = 7. The y-intercept is the value at x = 0, which for this new graph is f(0 − 3) = f(−3) — and f(−3) is not one of the values given, so the new y-intercept cannot be worked out from the information given. Writing 'y-intercept stays at (0, −8)' wrongly assumes a horizontal translation leaves the y-intercept unchanged — it generally does not, since it moves the whole graph sideways, including the point that used to sit on the y-axis. Writing roots at x = −4 and x = 1 comes from translating 3 units to the LEFT instead of to the right — f(x − 3) shifts the graph in the positive x-direction, not the negative direction.
- (a) (4, −8), a minimum point — The transformation x → x + 1 inside f translates the graph 1 unit to the LEFT, so the x-coordinate becomes 5 − 1 = 4. The minus sign in front of f reflects the graph in the x-axis, so the y-coordinate becomes −8, and a reflection in the x-axis turns every maximum into a minimum, so (4, −8) is a minimum point. Writing '(4, −8), a maximum point' gets the coordinates right but forgets that a reflection in the x-axis swaps maximum and minimum points. Writing '(6, −8), a minimum point' comes from translating 1 unit to the RIGHT instead of the left — f(x + 1) always moves the graph in the negative x-direction. Writing '(4, 8), a minimum point' gets the x-coordinate and the type right, but forgets to actually negate the y-coordinate, even though it does correctly reclassify the point as a minimum.
- (b) y = 2x² + 14x + 19 — A translation by the vector (−2, 0) moves the graph 2 units in the negative x-direction, which means replacing x with (x + 2): 2(x + 2)² + 6(x + 2) − 1. Expanding 2(x + 2)² gives 2x² + 8x + 8, and 6(x + 2) gives 6x + 12; collecting terms 2x² + 8x + 8 + 6x + 12 − 1 simplifies to 2x² + 14x + 19. Substituting (x − 2) instead of (x + 2) — translating in the wrong direction — gives 2(x−2)² + 6(x−2) − 1, which simplifies to 2x² − 2x − 5. Distributing the outer 2 only onto the x² term of the expansion, instead of onto every term of (x + 2)², gives 2x² + 10x + 15. Dropping the −1 when collecting the constant terms, treating 8 + 12 as 20 rather than 8 + 12 − 1 as 19, gives 2x² + 14x + 20.
- (a) (3, 7) — y = f(x) + 5 is a vertical translation of y = f(x) by 5 units up — the translation vector is (0, 5) — so only the y-coordinate of any point changes. Turning point (3, 2) → (3, 2 + 5) = (3, 7). Adding the 5 to the x-coordinate, or treating it as a horizontal shift like y = f(x + 5), moves the wrong coordinate — check first whether the number sits inside or outside the brackets.
- (a) −1 — Reflecting y = sin x in the x-axis gives y = −sin x, so g(x) = −sin x. Since sin 90° = 1, g(90) = −1. Reading sin 90° = 1 and forgetting to apply the reflection gives 1. Misreading the angle as 0° instead of 90° gives sin 0° = 0, so 0. Confusing sin 90° with sin 30° = 0.5, then reflecting it, gives −0.5.
- (a) −8 — −f(x) means take the output value from the table and change its sign, without changing which x-value is looked up. From the table, f(1) = 8, so −f(1) = −8. Reading f(1) = 8 from the table but forgetting to apply the negative sign gives 8. Misreading the row and using f(0) = 5 instead of f(1) = 8, then negating it, gives −5. Confusing −f(x) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(1) = 8 and subtracting 1 instead of negating — gives 7.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.