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
- (a) 6x + 12 — A regular hexagon has 6 equal sides, so the perimeter is 6(x + 2) = 6x + 12. A candidate who multiplies only the x-term by 6 and forgets to multiply the 2 gets 6x + 2. A candidate who multiplies only the number term by 6 and forgets to multiply the x gets x + 12. A candidate who adds 6 and 2 to make a single coefficient of x instead of expanding the brackets gets 8x.
- (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.
- (a) Subtracting 4x gives 3 = 10, which is never true. — Method: try to solve the equation as normal and see what happens. Working: subtract 4x from both sides: 4x + 3 − 4x = 4x + 10 − 4x, giving 3 = 10. This statement is false for every value of x, so the equation has no solution. Answer: subtracting 4x gives 3 = 10, which is never true. "x would have to be negative" invents a constraint on x that the equation never states. "It's true for every x" confuses this equation with an identity, where both sides would simplify to the same expression. "x = 7" misreads the false statement 3 = 10 as something to solve for x, rather than recognising it means no solution exists.
- (b) y decreases towards zero but never reaches it — Method: as x gets larger, dividing 20 by a bigger number gives a smaller result, so y decreases; because 20/x can never be exactly zero for any positive x, the curve gets closer to zero without ever reaching it, so y decreases towards zero but never reaches it. Distractor origins: 'y increases towards a limit but never reaches it' has the relationship backwards, treating y as increasing when it is actually decreasing; 'y decreases at a steady rate and reaches zero' wrongly assumes the graph behaves like a straight line that eventually hits zero; 'y stays the same however large x becomes' wrongly assumes there is no change in y at all.
- (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) Overestimate — the curve bends upward (convex). — The first differences of the speeds are 3, 5, 7 and 9, so the second differences are 2, 2 and 2 — constant and positive, which means the speed-time graph curves upwards (is convex). On a convex curve, each straight chord used by the trapezium rule lies above the curve, so the trapezium rule overestimates the true distance. 'Underestimate — the curve bends upward' states the same correct geometry but gets the conclusion backwards — a chord above the curve means too much area is counted, not too little. 'Overestimate — the speed values are increasing' uses the wrong evidence: increasing speed alone doesn't tell you whether the curve bends up or down, only the second differences do. 'Underestimate — second differences are constant' confuses a constant second difference with a steady rate of change in speed, which isn't what the second difference of a speed-time table measures.
- (a) −2 m/s² — The gradient of a line through two points is the change in the y-value divided by the change in the x-value: (6 − 22)/(16 − 8) = −16/8 = −2 m/s². The negative sign confirms the deceleration mentioned in the question. Writing 2 m/s² comes from subtracting the velocities in the wrong order, using (22 − 6) instead of (6 − 22), which loses the sign that shows the car is slowing down. Writing −0.5 m/s² comes from inverting the fraction, dividing the change in time by the change in velocity instead of the other way round. Writing −16 m/s² comes from finding the change in velocity, −16, but forgetting to divide by the change in time, 8 seconds.
- (b) 12 years — Method: call the number of years t, add t to both ages, and form an equation from the comparison at that future time. Working: in t years the leader will be 44 + t and the scout will be 16 + t, so 44 + t = 2(16 + t); expanding gives 44 + t = 32 + 2t, and subtracting t and 32 from both sides gives t = 12. Checking: in 12 years the leader will be 56 and the scout 28, and 56 = 2 × 28. Answer: 12 years. The distractors: 6 years comes from halving the leader's present age instead, so that the scout has to reach 22, which takes 6 years; 14 years comes from halving the 28-year gap between the two ages; 28 years comes from giving the age gap itself as the number of years.
- (c) 16 km/h — Method: total distance = 12 + 8 = 20 km. Total time = 30 + 30 + 15 = 75 minutes = 1.25 hours. Average speed = total distance ÷ total time = 20 ÷ 1.25 = 16 km/h. Distractor origins: 20 km/h gives the total distance without ever dividing by the total time; 24 km/h uses only the speed of the first stage (12 km in 30 minutes), ignoring the second stage and the rest; 28 km/h averages the two separate stage speeds, 24 km/h and 32 km/h, instead of using total distance over total time.
- (c) xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ) — Method: a formula xₙ₊₁ = f(xₙ) is a correct rearrangement when the equation x = f(x) turns back into the equation you started with, so rearrange x³ + 4x − 9 = 0 by making the cube the subject. Working: x³ + 4x − 9 = 0 gives x³ = 9 − 4x, because the 4x and the 9 each change sign as they cross the equals sign; taking the cube root of both sides gives x = ∛(9 − 4x), which is the formula xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ). Answer: xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ). The distractors: ∛(9 + 4xₙ) comes from writing x³ = 9 + 4x, moving the 4x across the equals sign without changing its sign; (9 + xₙ³)/4 comes from making the linear term the subject but keeping the sign of the cube, writing 4x = 9 + x³ when the equation gives 4x = 9 − x³; ∛(9 − 4xₙ³) cubes the x in the linear term as well, changing a term the original equation never cubed.
- (c) P — Sequence P has a common ratio of 2 (4 × 2 = 8, 8 × 2 = 16, 16 × 2 = 32), so it is geometric. Sequence Q has a common difference of 4, which is arithmetic, not geometric — a candidate who confuses a constant difference with a constant ratio picks Q. Sequence R has increasing differences of 3, 5, 7, a quadratic sequence, not geometric — a candidate who assumes any fast-growing sequence must be geometric picks R. Sequence S is the square numbers from 2² onwards (2², 3², 4², 5²), which is also quadratic, not geometric — a candidate who thinks squaring always means geometric growth picks S.
- (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.
- (d) 1 hour 32 minutes — T = 40 × 1.8 + 20 = 72 + 20 = 92 minutes. Since 92 = 60 + 32, the cooking time is 1 hour 32 minutes. A candidate who rounds the mass to 2 kg before substituting gets 40 × 2 + 20 = 100 minutes = 1 hour 40 minutes. A candidate who forgets to add the 20 minutes gets 40 × 1.8 = 72 minutes = 1 hour 12 minutes. A candidate who multiplies the mass by (40 + 20) = 60 instead of substituting into the formula gets 1.8 × 60 = 108 minutes = 1 hour 48 minutes.
- (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.
- (a) 23 — The number of logs increases by 4 for each layer down, starting from 3 in the top layer, so the nth layer has 3+(n−1)×4 logs. For the 6th layer: 3+5×4=3+20=23. A candidate who adds the difference of 4 six times instead of five, treating the top layer as needing an addition too, would compute 3+6×4=27. A candidate who uses 4n instead of 4n−1, omitting the adjustment for the first layer, would compute 4×6=24. A candidate who subtracts the common difference, 4, instead of 1 when adjusting the multiplier would compute 4×6−4=20.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.