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
- (d) 6.0 — Subtract 1.8 from both sides: 6.3x ≤ 38.2. Divide both sides by 6.3: x ≤ 6.0634… . The question asks for the greatest value to 1 decimal place that still satisfies the inequality. Testing 6.1: 6.3 × 6.1 + 1.8 = 40.23, which is more than 40, so 6.1 fails. Testing 6.0: 6.3 × 6.0 + 1.8 = 39.6, which is no more than 40, so 6.0 works and is the greatest such value. A candidate who simply rounds 6.0634… to 1 decimal place answers 6.1, without checking that it satisfies the inequality. A candidate who adds 1.8 instead of subtracting works out 41.8 ÷ 6.3 and answers 6.6. A candidate who forgets the 1.8 altogether divides 40 by 6.3 and answers 6.3.
- (b) 3.38 — r₁ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8)) = √11.9366 = 3.4550. r₂ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.4550)) = √11.2947 = 3.3608. r₃ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.3608)) = √11.4232 = 3.3798, which rounds to 3.38. Choosing 3.36 stops at r₂, one iteration too early. Choosing 4.82 leaves out the '+ 5' inside the bracket, dividing by π × rₙ instead of π × (rₙ + 5). Choosing 3.45 comes from using π ≈ 3 instead of the calculator's π key throughout.
- (d) x = −4, y = −19 — x² + 8x − 3 = (x + 4)² − 4² − 3 = (x + 4)² − 19. Substituting x = −4: (−4)² = 16, 8 × (−4) = −32, so 16 − 32 − 3 = −19, confirming the minimum value −19 at x = −4: turning point (−4, −19). Using 8 instead of half of it inside the bracket gives (x + 8)² − 67, turning point (−8, −67) — wrong, because only half the coefficient of x belongs inside the bracket. Reading the bracket's sign directly as the turning point's x-coordinate gives (4, −19) — wrong, because (x + 4)² is zero at x = −4, not x = 4. Computing 16 + 3 = 19 instead of −3 − 16 = −19 flips the sign of the constant, giving (−4, 19) — wrong, since the completed square's constant must be evaluated as −3 minus 16, not 16 plus 3. Check by substitution whenever the sign of a constant feels uncertain.
- (a) 5.8 — The horizontal distance is 3 and the vertical distance is 5, so using Pythagoras' theorem the distance is √(3² + 5²) = √34 = 5.8 (1 d.p.). A candidate who adds the two differences instead of using Pythagoras gets 3 + 5 = 8.0. A candidate who works out 3² + 5² = 34 but forgets to take the square root gets 34.0. A candidate who subtracts the squares instead of adding them gets √(5² − 3²) = √16 = 4.0.
- (c) £8,000 — The multiplier for one year is 1 − 0.18 = 0.82, so 0.82 × 0.82 = 0.6724. Original value = 5,379.20 ÷ 0.6724 = £8,000. Treating the total drop as simple depreciation (18% × 2 = 36% lost in total, so dividing by 0.64 instead of 0.6724) gives 5,379.20 ÷ 0.64 = £8,405 (nearest pound) — wrong, because the depreciation compounds year by year rather than adding up. Dividing by 0.82 only once, forgetting the second year entirely, gives 5,379.20 ÷ 0.82 = £6,560 — wrong, because two years of depreciation have passed, not one. Multiplying by 0.6724 instead of dividing by it — repeating the depreciation forward instead of reversing it — gives 5,379.20 × 0.6724 = £3,617 (nearest pound) — wrong, because to find the ORIGINAL value you must undo the depreciation, not apply it again.
- (c) 6,400 — 9 hours contains 9 ÷ 3 = 3 whole periods of doubling, so the population is 800 × 2³. Since 2³ = 8, the population after 9 hours is 800 × 8 = 6,400. Adding 100% growth three times instead of compounding it — treating the growth as simple, not repeated doubling — gives 800 × 4 = 3,200, which is wrong because each period doubles the CURRENT population, not the original one. Using 9 as the power instead of dividing by the 3-hour period first gives 800 × 2⁹ = 409,600, which is wrong because the exponent counts periods, not hours. Giving the growth factor 2³ = 8 on its own, without multiplying by the starting population 800, leaves the answer as 8, which is wrong because the question asks for the population, not the multiplier. Always check that your final number of periods matches the total time divided by the period length.
- (b) y = −3x/4 + 25 — Method: a straight line that touches a circle at one point is a tangent there, so it is perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point; find the gradient of the radius, take its negative reciprocal, then substitute the point of contact into y − y₁ = m(x − x₁). Working: the radius from (0, 0) to (12, 16) has gradient 16 ÷ 12, which cancels to 4/3, so the tangent has gradient −3/4. Substituting gives y − 16 = −3/4(x − 12), so y − 16 = −3x/4 + 9 and y = −3x/4 + 25. Answer: y = −3x/4 + 25. The distractors: y = 3x/4 + 7 turns the gradient of the radius upside down but leaves it positive, so the perpendicular step is only half done; y = −4x/3 + 32 changes the sign of the radius gradient without turning it upside down, which is the other half left undone; y = −3x/4 − 25 uses the correct gradient but substitutes the point of contact with both signs reversed, writing y + 16 = −3/4(x + 12).
- (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.
- (a) 1.36 — Method: put the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, feed that value back in to get x₂, and round only once the second value has been found. Working: x₁ = 5 ÷ (1 + 2) = 5 ÷ 3 = 1.66666…; x₂ = 5 ÷ (1.66666… + 2) = 5 ÷ 3.66666… = 1.36363…. The digit in the third decimal place is 3, so x₂ = 1.36 correct to 2 decimal places. Answer: 1.36. The distractors: 1.67 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula, given by a candidate who counts the starting value itself as x₁; 1.49 is x₃ = 1.48648…, one use of the formula too many; 1.37 comes from writing x₁ down as 1.66, truncating the display instead of keeping it in full, and then working out 5 ÷ 3.66 = 1.36612…, which rounds up to 1.37.
- (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.
- (d) £195 — Substituting x = 3 into y = 45x + 60 gives y = 45 × 3 + 60 = 135 + 60 = 195. A candidate who forgets to add the call-out fee would get only 45 × 3 = £135. A candidate who adds the hours to the fee and the rate instead of multiplying would get 45 + 60 + 3 = £108. A candidate who multiplies both the hourly rate and the call-out fee by the number of hours would get 45 × 3 + 60 × 3 = £315.
- (a) 0 — the line does not intersect the circle — Substitute y = 2x + 7 into x² + y² = 4: x² + (2x + 7)² = 4, which expands to x² + 4x² + 28x + 49 = 4, giving 5x² + 28x + 45 = 0. The discriminant is b² − 4ac = 28² − 4 × 5 × 45. Since 28² = 784 and 4 × 5 × 45 = 900, the discriminant is 784 − 900 = −116. Since the discriminant is negative, the quadratic has no real solutions, so the line does not meet the circle at all: 0 intersection points. Distractor routes: "1 — the line is a tangent" confuses a negative discriminant with a zero one; a discriminant of exactly zero gives one point, a tangent, but −116 is not zero. "2 — the line crosses the circle at two points" assumes a positive discriminant without actually working it out. "It cannot be found without solving the quadratic" is the whole point the discriminant exists to avoid — its sign alone, without finding x, tells you the number of real solutions.
- (b) 4.39 — x₁ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4²) = ∛(150 − 48) = ∛102 = 4.672 (unrounded). x₂ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4.672²) = ∛(150 − 65.49) = ∛84.51 = 4.39 (2 d.p.). Choosing 4.67 stops after only one iteration, giving x₁ instead of x₂. Choosing 84.51 finds the value inside the cube root for x₂ but never takes the cube root. Choosing 6.32 comes from adding 3xₙ² instead of subtracting it inside the root, which does not match the given formula.
- (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.
- (b) 3 — At the limit, L = √(2L + 3). Squaring both sides: L² = 2L + 3, so L² − 2L − 3 = 0, which factorises as (L − 3)(L + 1) = 0, giving L = 3 or L = −1. Since the sequence of iterates stays positive throughout, the limit is L = 3. Taking the other, negative root without rejecting it gives −1. Treating the equation L = 2L + 3 as already linear, forgetting to square both sides first, gives −L = 3, so L = −3. A sign error when factorising, writing (L + 3)(L − 1) = 0 instead of (L − 3)(L + 1) = 0, gives L = 1.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.