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
- (b) 58.8 km/h — Total distance = 100 + 47 = 147 km. Total time = 1.5 + 0.25 + 0.75 = 2.5 hours. Average speed = 147 ÷ 2.5 = 58.8 km/h. Leaving out the 0.25 hours of waiting from the total time gives 147 ÷ 2.25 = 65.3 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because the train is stationary but time is still passing on the whole journey. Using only the first leg gives 100 ÷ 1.5 = 66.7 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because it ignores the second leg of the journey entirely. Working out each leg's own speed (100 ÷ 1.5 = 66.7 km/h and 47 ÷ 0.75 = 62.7 km/h) and then averaging those two speeds gives 64.7 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because the average of two speeds over DIFFERENT times is not the same as total distance divided by total time.
- (a) 45 — The ratio between the two given points, one power of x apart, gives b: 405 ÷ 135 = 3, so b = 3. Substituting back, at x = 1, y = A × b, so 135 = A × 3, giving A = 45. Giving the common ratio b itself instead of A confuses which unknown was asked for and produces 3 — wrong, because the question asks for A, not b. Giving 135 instead treats the first given point as the y-intercept and reads A off it directly — wrong, because that point is at x = 1, not x = 0, so 135 is A × b, not A. Assuming A equals b⁰ = 1 by itself, rather than substituting a known point to solve for A, gives 1 — wrong, because b⁰ is always 1 regardless of A; A must be found using an actual (x, y) pair from the graph.
- (d) x + y = 7 — The midpoint of AB is (−1 + 5)/2, (2 + 8)/2, which is (2, 5). The gradient of AB is (8 − 2)/(5 − (−1)) = 6/6 = 1. The perpendicular bisector has gradient −1 and passes through (2, 5): y − 5 = −(x − 2), which rearranges to x + y = 7. Distractor routes: x − y = −3 uses the gradient of AB itself, 1, rather than its negative reciprocal, giving a line PARALLEL to AB through the midpoint instead of perpendicular to it. x + y = 12 comes from adding the y-coordinates, 2 + 8 = 10, but forgetting to divide by 2, using the midpoint (2, 10) instead of (2, 5). x + y = 4 comes from using A's x-coordinate, −1, directly instead of averaging it with B's, giving the point (−1, 5) instead of the true midpoint (2, 5).
- (a) 36 km/h — Speed is distance ÷ time. Convert 25 minutes to hours: 25 ÷ 60 = 5/12 hours. Then 15 ÷ (5/12) = 15 × 12/5 = 36 km/h. Dividing 15 by 25 without converting minutes to hours gives 0.6 km/h. Multiplying 15 by 25/60 instead of dividing by it gives 6.25 km/h. Working out the speed in km per minute, 0.6, and then multiplying by 24 instead of 60 gives 14.4 km/h.
- (c) 3.153 — x₁ = √(4 × 1 + 1) = √5 = 2.236067977. x₂ = √(4 × 2.236067977 + 1) = √9.944271908 = 3.153453965, which rounds to 3.153. Reporting x₁ instead of x₂ gives 2.236067977, which rounds to 2.236. A sign error inside the root, using xₙ₊₁ = √(4xₙ − 1) instead of √(4xₙ + 1), gives x₁ = √3 = 1.732050808 and x₂ = √(4 × 1.732050808 − 1) = √5.928203232 = 2.434790182, which rounds to 2.435. Applying the formula in the wrong order, working out √(4xₙ) + 1 at every step instead of √(4xₙ + 1), gives x₁ = √4 + 1 = 3 and x₂ = √(4 × 3) + 1 = 4.464101615, which rounds to 4.464.
- (c) £2.80 — 3n + 1.50 = 9.90, so 3n = 8.40 and n = 2.80, so each notebook costs £2.80. A candidate who forgets to subtract the cost of the pen and divides the total by 3 gets n = 9.90 ÷ 3 = £3.30. A candidate who adds the cost of the pen instead of subtracting it gets 3n = 11.40 and n = £3.80. A candidate who treats the pen as a fourth notebook and divides the total by 4 gets n = 9.90 ÷ 4 = £2.48 (2 d.p.).
- (c) 2.26 — Method: apply the formula repeatedly, keeping the whole display each time, and stop when two values in a row round to the same 2 decimal places; that shared rounded value is the solution to that accuracy. Working: x₁ = ∛(2 × 2 + 7) = ∛11 = 2.22398…; x₂ = ∛(2 × 2.22398… + 7) = ∛11.44796… = 2.25377…; x₃ = ∛11.50754… = 2.25767…; x₄ = ∛11.51534… = 2.25818…. Now x₃ and x₄ both round to 2.26, so the sequence has settled. Answer: 2.26. The distractors: 2.22 is x₁ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops after one use of the formula; 2.25 is x₂ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops as soon as two values look close instead of waiting until two consecutive values round to the same figure; 1.91 is ∛7, which comes from ignoring the 2x term and solving x³ = 7 instead.
- (d) x₂ closer: f(x₂) = 0.0225, nearer to 0 — f(2.6) = 2.6² − 7 = 6.76 − 7 = −0.24, and f(2.65) = 2.65² − 7 = 7.0225 − 7 = 0.0225. The closer a value of x is to the root, the closer f(x) is to zero — regardless of sign. Since |0.0225| = 0.0225 is much smaller than |−0.24| = 0.24, x₂ = 2.65 is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: −0.24 is the smaller value' comes from comparing the SIGNED values of f(x) rather than their distances from zero — −0.24 is indeed less than 0.0225 as a number, but that does not mean x₁ is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: f(x₁) negative ⇒ nearer root' invents a rule that a negative f(x) means x is closer to the root; the sign of f(x) only tells you which side of the root x is on, not how close it is. 'x₂ is the exact root, since f(x₂) ≈ 0' misreads f(x₂) = 0.0225 as zero; the true root is √7 ≈ 2.6458, so f(2.65) is close to zero but not equal to it, and x₂ is an approximation, not the exact root.
- (c) 4 years — The yearly multiplier is 1 − 0.12 = 0.88. After 1 year: 2400 × 0.88 = 2112. After 2 years: 2112 × 0.88 = 1858.56. After 3 years: 1858.56 × 0.88 = 1635.5328. After 4 years: 1635.5328 × 0.88 = 1439.27 (2 d.p.), which is the first value below £1,500 — so it takes 4 complete years. Stopping after 3 years, where the value is still £1,635.53, above £1,500, gives 3 years — wrong, because the threshold has not been crossed yet at that point. Continuing for one year longer than needed gives 5 years — wrong, because the value has already fallen below £1,500 by year 4, so year 5 overcounts. Multiplying by the percentage itself instead of by the multiplier — using 0.12 in place of 0.88 — gives 2400 × 0.12 = £288 after a single year, apparently below £1,500 straight away, so 1 year — wrong, because 12% is the part lost each year, and the part left is 88%, so the multiplier is 0.88.
- (b) 6 — 3n + 4.5 = 22.5, so 3n = 18 and n = 6. A candidate who divides 22.5 by 3 first and ignores the 4.5 gets n = 7.5. A candidate who makes a sign error and forms the equation 3n − 4.5 = 22.5 gets 3n = 27 and n = 9. A candidate who divides by 3 before subtracting the 4.5, working out 22.5 ÷ 3 + 4.5, gets n = 12.
- (c) 307.1 g — The multiplier for one hour is 1 − 0.15 = 0.85. After 3 hours the mass is 500 × 0.85³. Since 0.85 × 0.85 = 0.7225 and 0.85 × 0.7225 = 0.614125, the mass is 500 × 0.614125 = 307.0625 g, which rounds to 307.1 g. Stopping after only 2 hours instead of 3 gives 500 × 0.7225 = 361.25 g, which rounds to 361.3 g — wrong, because the question asks for 3 hours, not 2. Treating the decay as simple (15% × 3 = 45% lost in total, applied once) gives 500 × 0.55 = 275.0 g, which is wrong because the decay compounds hour by hour rather than adding up. Working out the AMOUNT LOST instead of the mass remaining gives 500 − 307.0625 = 192.9375 g, which rounds to 192.9 g — wrong, because the question asks what remains, not what has decayed away. Whenever a percentage decreases repeatedly, multiply by the same factor each period rather than adding the percentages together.
- (d) 8 — Since the mean of the four numbers is 12.5, their total is 4 × 12.5 = 50. The three known numbers add up to 8 + 15 + 19 = 42, so n = 50 − 42 = 8. A candidate who multiplies the mean by 3 instead of 4 gets a total of 37.5, giving n = 37.5 − 42 = −4.5. A candidate who forgets to subtract the three known numbers and gives the total itself as n states n = 50. A candidate who subtracts the mean from the total of the three known numbers instead of the other way round gets n = 42 − 12.5 = 29.5.
- (b) 235 litres — The flow rate at t = 10 is the gradient of the tangent: change in volume ÷ change in time = (190 − 130) ÷ (12 − 8) = 60 ÷ 4 = 15 litres per minute. Treating this rate as roughly constant for a short interval, the volume 5 minutes after t = 10 is estimated as 160 + 5 × 15 = 235 litres. Using the tangent's own point spacing — 2 minutes, from t = 10 to t = 12 — instead of the 5 minutes actually asked for gives 160 + 2 × 15 = 190, which is just the volume already given at one of the tangent's own points, not an answer to the question asked. Multiplying the gradient by the time WITHOUT adding the starting volume, 5 × 15 = 75, forgets that a rate estimates a CHANGE, which must be added to the starting volume, not given as the answer on its own. Subtracting instead of adding, 160 − 5 × 15 = 85, extrapolates backward in time rather than forward.
- (a) It gets closer to zero but never actually reaches it. — y = 60 × (0.5)ˣ is always positive, however large x is, because a positive number raised to any power stays positive. As x increases, (0.5)ˣ gets smaller and smaller but never equals zero, so y approaches zero without ever reaching it. Believing the curve reaches zero when x = 60, because 60 is the starting value, mixes up the y-intercept with a stopping point — an exponential decay curve like this one never actually reaches the x-axis, so this is wrong. Believing the curve goes negative for large x is wrong because multiplying a positive number by (0.5) any number of times can never produce a negative result. Believing the curve levels off at y = 0.5, confusing the base of the exponential with its eventual level, is wrong: the base only controls how fast the curve falls, not where it settles — this curve settles at y = 0, not y = 0.5. Whenever you sketch an exponential decay curve, draw it approaching the x-axis but never touching it.
- (a) Overestimates — trapezium edges lie above the curve. — For a concave-up curve, each chord connecting two points on the curve lies ABOVE the curve between those points, because the curve bends away from the chord underneath it. The trapezium rule uses these chords as the top edges of each trapezium, so the trapeziums cover a larger region than the true area under the curve — the estimate is an overestimate. Saying it underestimates because the edges lie below the curve gets the direction backwards: for a concave-up curve the edges lie above, not below. Saying it overestimates 'because more strips always increase it' gives the right verdict for the wrong reason — using MORE, narrower strips makes a trapezium estimate more accurate and brings it closer to the true area, it does not simply increase the total. Saying the estimate is exact ignores that straight edges cannot follow a curved line perfectly; there is always a gap between the chord and the curve on a bend, which is exactly what makes the rule an estimate rather than an exact calculation.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.