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 only
Answer key: Translations and reflections of graphs worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (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.
- (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.
- (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).
- (c) 1 — At x = 0, f(0) = 4. Applying the transformations in order — reflect in the x-axis first, then translate up by 5 — gives −f(0) + 5 = −4 + 5 = 1. Applying the translation but forgetting the reflection gives f(0) + 5 = 9. Applying the reflection to the whole expression, including the +5, gives −f(0) − 5 = −9. Applying the reflection but forgetting the translation gives −f(0) = −4.
- (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) 8 — f(x − 1) means every input to f is reduced by 1 before it is looked up. At x = 2, the input to f becomes 2 − 1 = 1, so f(x − 1) at x = 2 is f(1) = 8. Reading f(2) = 4 directly from the table, without applying the shift, gives 4. Shifting in the wrong direction, using x + 1 = 3 instead of x − 1 = 1, gives f(3) = 1. Confusing f(x − 1) with f(x) − 1 — taking f(2) = 4 and then subtracting 1 — gives 3.
- (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.
- (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) (4, 1) — y = −f(x) reflects the graph of y = f(x) in the x-axis: every point (x, y) maps to (x, −y). Applying this to (4, −1): the x-coordinate stays 4, and the y-coordinate −1 becomes its negative, 1. Leaving the y-coordinate unchanged skips the reflection entirely, giving (4, −1); reflecting the x-coordinate instead, or reflecting both, mixes this up with a reflection in the y-axis or a rotation, giving (−4, −1) or (−4, 1).
- (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.
- (b) a = 7; turning point (4, 2) — A vertical translation y = f(x) + a moves every point on the graph up or down by a, so the x-coordinate of the turning point stays at 4 and the minimum value becomes −5 + a. Setting −5 + a = 2 and solving gives a = 7, so the new turning point is (4, 2). Rearranging −5 + a = 2 with a sign error, treating it as a = −5 − 2, gives a = −7 while still landing on the correct turning-point coordinates. Correctly finding a = 7 but then writing down the original turning point instead of the shifted one gives (4, −5). Assuming a is simply equal to the new minimum value itself, ignoring the original −5 entirely, gives a = 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.
- (a) 3 — y = f(x + 2) is f(x) translated 2 units to the LEFT (inside the bracket, adding moves the graph in the negative x-direction). The root moves with the whole graph: 5 − 2 = 3. Moving right instead of left gives 7; assuming a bracket shift leaves the root unchanged gives 5; writing down the shift amount 2 itself skips the translation altogether.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.