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
- (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.
- (b) Translate −90° in x, then translate −2 in y. — cos(x + 90°) translates the graph 90° in the NEGATIVE x-direction, since a positive shift inside the bracket moves a graph left, not right, and subtracting 2 afterwards translates it 2 units in the negative y-direction (down). So the sequence is: translate −90° in x, then translate −2 in y. Using +90° in x reverses the direction of the horizontal shift — the sign inside the bracket moves the graph the opposite way to what it looks like. Using +2 in y reverses the direction of the vertical shift; subtracting 2 outside the function moves the graph down, not up. Describing the −2 as a reflection in the x-axis is wrong because a reflection turns positive y-values negative and vice versa, whereas here every y-value is simply reduced by the fixed amount 2, which is what a translation does, not a reflection.
- (d) y = x² − 10x + 21 — A translation by the vector (3, 0) moves the graph 3 units in the positive x-direction, which means replacing every x in the equation with (x − 3). Substitute into x² − 4x: (x − 3)² − 4(x − 3). Expand (x − 3)² to x² − 6x + 9, and expand −4(x − 3) to −4x + 12. Collecting like terms, x² − 6x + 9 − 4x + 12 = x² − 10x + 21, so the image is y = x² − 10x + 21. Substituting (x + 3) instead of (x − 3) — translating in the wrong direction — gives y = x² + 2x − 3. Adding 3 straight onto the original equation, treating the translation as vertical instead of horizontal, gives y = x² − 4x + 3. Expanding (x − 3)² as x² − 3x + 9, using −3x instead of −6x for the middle term, and then combining with −4(x − 3) gives y = x² − 7x + 21.
- (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).
- (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.
- (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) (2, 6) — y = f(x − 3) translates y = f(x) horizontally by 3 units to the RIGHT — inside the brackets, subtracting moves the graph in the positive x-direction. Turning point (−1, 6) → (−1 + 3, 6) = (2, 6). The common slip is to move LEFT instead, since the sign inside the bracket is negative — that gives (−4, 6). Changing the y-coordinate instead of the x-coordinate, as in (−1, 3) or (−1, 9), treats this as a vertical shift, which y = f(x − 3) is not.
- (c) −4 — f(2) = 7, and y = f(x) + a passing through (2, 3) means f(2) + a = 3, so 7 + a = 3, giving a = 3 − 7 = −4. Writing a = 4 comes from subtracting the wrong way round, 7 − 3 instead of 3 − 7. Writing a = 10 comes from adding the two y-values instead of subtracting one from the other. Writing a = 3 comes from taking the new y-coordinate as the value of a directly, without accounting for the original y-value of 7 at all.
- (b) Translate +5 in x, then reflect in the x-axis. — Translating y = x² by 5 units in the positive x-direction gives y = (x − 5)². Reflecting this in the x-axis, which replaces y with −y, gives y = −(x − 5)², matching the target. Using a translation of −5 in x instead gives y = (x + 5)², and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −(x + 5)² — the sign inside the bracket is wrong. Reflecting in the y-axis first does nothing to y = x², since (−x)² = x², so translating afterwards only reaches y = (x − 5)² with no negative sign at all. Translating by 5 units in y instead of x gives y = x² + 5, and reflecting that in the x-axis gives y = −x² − 5, a different curve altogether — a vertical shift does not create the (x − 5)² term the target equation needs.
- (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) A translation by vector (0, 3) — y = x² + 3 adds a constant outside the squaring, so it is a vertical translation of y = x² — every point moves the same distance parallel to the y-axis, with no change in x. The vector is (0, 3), matching the +3. A vector of (3, 0) confuses this with a horizontal shift; (0, −3) has the right axis but the wrong sign, since the graph moves up, not down; a stretch changes the shape of the curve, which adding a constant term never does.
- (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).
- (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.
- (c) Translate +1 in y; new range 0 ≤ y ≤ 2 — Adding 1 to sin x translates the graph 1 unit in the positive y-direction, and every y-value on the range increases by 1: −1 + 1 = 0 and 1 + 1 = 2, giving a new range of 0 ≤ y ≤ 2. A translation in the x-direction would not add anything to the y-values, so 'Translate +1 in x; range unchanged' correctly leaves the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 for that (wrong) transformation, but the transformation itself is not what y = sin x + 1 shows. 'Translate +1 in y; new range −2 ≤ y ≤ 0' correctly spots the translation but subtracts 1 from each bound instead of adding it. 'Reflect in the x-axis' mistakes the transformation for a reflection rather than a translation; reflecting sin x in the x-axis does leave the range at −1 ≤ y ≤ 1 unchanged in size, but that is not the transformation y = sin x + 1 actually applies.
- (d) −2 — y = f(x) − 6 is f(x) shifted down by 6, so every y-value on the graph decreases by 6. At x = 0, f(0) = 4, so the new y-value is 4 − 6 = −2. Adding 6 instead of subtracting gives 10; writing down the shift itself, −6, or leaving the original value 4 unchanged both skip the translation altogether.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.