Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Algebra worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions across the algebra statements at Higher tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Calculator
Answer key: Algebra worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (c) 64 m — The distance travelled is the area under the speed-time graph. From t = 0 to t = 4, the shape is a triangle with base 4 and height 8, area 1/2 × 4 × 8 = 16. From t = 4 to t = 10, the shape is a rectangle with base 6 and height 8, area 6 × 8 = 48. Total distance: 16 + 48 = 64 m. Treating the whole 10 seconds as a single trapezium with parallel sides 0 and 8 and width 10, instead of splitting it into the triangle and rectangle, gives 40 m. Ignoring the acceleration phase completely and assuming the car travels at a constant 8 m/s for all 10 seconds gives 8 × 10 = 80 m. Misreading the second interval as running from t = 4 to t = 8 instead of t = 4 to t = 10 gives a rectangle area of 4 × 8 = 32, plus the correct triangle of 16, totalling 48 m.
- (a) Yes — the t² coefficient is negative, giving an n-shape. — The coefficient of t² in h = −5t² + 20t is −5, which is negative, so the graph is n-shaped with a maximum point — this matches the physical story of the rocket rising then falling, but the shape itself is decided by the negative coefficient of t², not by the story alone. Saying the shape comes from the story rather than the coefficient gets the reasoning backwards — the algebra determines the shape, and the story happens to agree with it. Saying it is U-shaped because height starts by increasing confuses the early part of the curve with its overall shape; a U-shaped curve would mean the rocket's height eventually increases again forever, which does not happen here. Saying it is n-shaped only because the rocket lands treats a consequence of the shape as if it were the cause.
- (b) 6x + 6 — Perimeter = 2[(2x + 5) + (x − 2)] = 2(3x + 3) = 6x + 6. A candidate who adds the length and width but forgets to double for the perimeter gets 3x + 3. A candidate who makes a sign error and adds 2 instead of subtracting it before doubling gets 2[(2x + 5) + (x + 2)] = 6x + 14. A candidate who multiplies the length and width instead of adding them, confusing the perimeter formula with the area formula, and then doubles that product, gets 2(2x + 5)(x − 2) = 4x² + 2x − 20.
- (a) 271 m — The reading at t = 12 isn't in the table, so it must be interpolated between t = 10 (35 m/s) and t = 14 (27 m/s): the velocity falls by 8 m/s over the 4-second gap, so over 2 seconds it falls by 4 m/s, giving 35 − 4 = 31 m/s. The trapezium rule then uses three strips of unequal width, 4, 6 and 2 seconds, with areas of 40, 165 and 66: 40 + 165 + 66 = 271 m. Writing 267 m comes from skipping the interpolation and using the table's t = 14 reading, 27, directly as the height at t = 12. Writing 282 m comes from treating all three strips as though they were 4 seconds wide, instead of using the true gaps of 4, 6 and 2 seconds between the readings. Writing 275 m comes from using the t = 10 reading, 35, at both ends of the final strip, instead of interpolating a new value at t = 12.
- (c) 50 — Method: the edge of the track is a circle centred on the origin, so it has equation x² + y² = r²; use the floodlight whose coordinates are given to find r², then substitute x = 0 to find where that circle meets the positive y-axis. Working: 30² + 40² = 900 + 1600 = 2500, so the edge of the track is x² + y² = 2500. Substituting x = 0 gives k² = 2500, so k = √2500 = 50, taking the positive root because k is positive. Answer: k = 50. The distractors: 2500 is r² used as though it were the radius, which would place the second floodlight fifty times too far from the centre; 70 adds the two coordinates, 30 + 40, instead of adding their squares; 40 takes the y-coordinate of the first floodlight to be the radius, which would only be true if that floodlight stood on the y-axis itself.
- (d) It diverges, growing rapidly without limit. — x₁ = 2³ − 2 = 8 − 2 = 6. x₂ = 6³ − 2 = 216 − 2 = 214. x₃ = 214³ − 2 = 9800344 − 2 = 9800342. The values 6, 214, 9800342, … grow far larger at every step, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Checking whether the sequence converges to a fixed value near 2 fails, since the terms grow enormously instead of levelling off. Checking for a repeating pair of values also fails, since 6, 214 and 9800342 are all different, with no sign of a return to 6. x₀ = 2 is a fixed point only if 2³ − 2 = 2, but 2³ − 2 = 6, not 2, so the sequence does not stay constant.
- (d) x = 4 or x = −4 — Method: divide both sides by 2 to get x² = 16, then take the square root of both sides: x = 4 or x = −4. Distractor origins: x = 4 forgets the negative root; x = 8 comes from halving 16 instead of taking its square root; x = 16 stops at x² = 16 without ever taking the square root.
- (b) x² + y² = 1369 — For a circle centred at the origin, the radius squared equals the sum of the squares of the coordinates of any point on it: r² = 12² + 35² = 144 + 1225 = 1369. The equation is x² + y² = 1369. x² + y² = 2209 comes from adding the coordinates first and then squaring the sum: (12 + 35)² = 47² = 2209, instead of squaring each coordinate separately. x² + y² = 1225 comes from using only 35² and leaving out the 12² term. x² + y² = 144 comes from using only 12² and leaving out the 35² term.
- (b) Student B's — narrower strips fit the curve more closely. — The trapezium rule replaces the curve with straight-line segments; the narrower each strip, the more closely its straight edge follows the curve, so Student B's estimate with 8 narrower strips is more likely to be closer to the true area. Reasoning from the number of arithmetic steps rather than from how well the straight lines fit the curve gives the wrong claim that Student A makes fewer rounding errors. Believing the trapezium rule is exact, rather than an estimate that improves with narrower strips, gives the wrong claim that the two are always the same. Believing wider strips smooth out the curve better, rather than following it less closely, gives the wrong claim in favour of Student A's wider strips.
- (b) 10 km — Method: find the constant speed from the graph (distance ÷ time for any point on the line), then multiply that speed by 20 minutes. Working: the line passes through (4 minutes, 2 km), so the speed is 2 ÷ 4 = 0.5 km per minute; in 20 minutes the cyclist travels 0.5 × 20 = 10 km. Answer: 10 km. Distractor refutation: 3 km comes from reading off the distance shown at the end of the plotted section (6 minutes) and stopping there, instead of extending the line to 20 minutes. 20 km comes from misreading the speed as 1 km per minute instead of 0.5 km per minute, doubling the true rate. 40 km comes from dividing 20 by the speed instead of multiplying by it, a reciprocal mix-up.
- (b) 5.00 — Continuing the iteration: x₁ = √(2 × 1 + 15) = √17 = 4.1231, x₂ = √(2 × 4.1231 + 15) = √23.2462 = 4.8214, x₃ = √(2 × 4.8214 + 15) = √24.6428 = 4.9642, x₄ = √(2 × 4.9642 + 15) = √24.9284 = 4.9928, and the values keep climbing towards 5.00 as n increases (the limit L satisfies L² = 2L + 15, so L² − 2L − 15 = 0, giving L = 5). Choosing 4.99 stops after x₄, one iteration before the value has settled fully to 5.00. Choosing 17.00 uses the value under the very first square root (2 × 1 + 15 = 17) as if that number itself were the limit. Choosing 1.00 assumes the sequence never moves from the starting value x₀.
- (a) 7.9 m — Method: the iteration converges on the width of the plot, so run the formula three times from the starting value and then add 4 m, because the length is 4 m greater than the width. Working: x₁ = √(30 − 4 × 3) = √18 = 4.24264…; x₂ = √(30 − 4 × 4.24264…) = √13.02943… = 3.60963…; x₃ = √(30 − 4 × 3.60963…) = √15.56147… = 3.94480…. The estimate for the length is 3.94480… + 4 = 7.94480…, which is 7.9 m correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 7.9 m. The iteration is still oscillating at x₃, so this is the estimate that three uses of the formula give, not a settled value. The distractors: 3.9 m is x₃ itself, the width, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 7.6 m uses x₂ in place of x₃, one use of the formula short, and then adds the 4 m correctly; 15.8 m multiplies the width by 4 instead of adding 4 m to it, reading greater than as a multiplier.
- (c) 81 m — Split the velocity-time graph into its three phases. The accelerating phase (0 to 4 s) is a triangle: 1/2 × 4 × 6 = 12. The constant phase (4 s at 6 m/s, for 10 s) is a rectangle: 10 × 6 = 60. The decelerating phase (3 s) is a triangle: 1/2 × 3 × 6 = 9. Total distance: 12 + 60 + 9 = 81 m. Forgetting the final decelerating phase entirely and adding only the first two areas gives 12 + 60 = 72 m. Treating all three phases as rectangles, forgetting to halve either triangular phase, gives 4 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 3 × 6 = 102 m. Halving only the deceleration triangle correctly but treating the acceleration phase as a rectangle too gives 4 × 6 + 60 + 9 = 93 m.
- (c) x = −2 or x = 4 — The solutions of x² − 2x − 8 = 0 are the x-values where y = 0. From the table, y = 0 when x = −2 and when x = 4, so those are the two solutions. Distractor origins: x = −1 or x = 3 picks the pair of x-values that give equal (but non-zero) y-values instead of y = 0; x = 0 or x = −8 mixes up an x-value with its corresponding y-value; x = −2 only reads off one of the two roots and misses the other.
- (d) 8 — Working backwards by halving (undoing the doubling), one 4-hour step at a time: 9,600 (20 h) → 4,800 (16 h) → 2,400 (12 h) → 1,200 (8 h) → 600 (4 h) → 300 (0 h). Reading these in time order — 300, 600, 1,200, 2,400, 4,800, 9,600 at 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 hours — the population is still at or below 1,000 at 4 hours (600) and first goes above 1,000 at 8 hours (1,200). So the recorded population first exceeds 1,000 at 8 hours. Answering 20 just reads off the time stated in the question, without working out when the threshold was actually first crossed — wrong, because 9,600 is only the value AT 20 hours, not necessarily the first time the population passed 1,000. Answering 0 comes from recovering the starting population by dividing 9,600 by 5 (the number of 4-hour gaps up to 20 hours) instead of by 2⁵ = 32 (the correct number of halvings), giving a wrongly-inflated starting value of 9,600 ÷ 5 = 1,920 — already above 1,000 at 0 hours — wrong, because doubling means the value must be halved five times, dividing by 2 five times (2⁵ = 32), not divided once by the number of gaps. Answering 12 comes from halving back only twice, from 9,600 to 4,800 (16 h) to 2,400 (12 h), and stopping there because 2,400 is already above 1,000, without checking that 1,200 at 8 hours is also above 1,000 and occurs earlier — wrong, because the FIRST recorded time above 1,000 is the earliest such time, not the first one reached while working backwards from 20 hours.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.