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) 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.
- (d) 12 — Since a₃ = a₂ + a₁, rearranging gives a₂ = a₃ − a₁ = 17 − 5 = 12. 22 comes from adding instead of subtracting: a₃ + a₁ = 17 + 5 = 22. 11 comes from treating the sequence as if it were arithmetic and averaging the two given terms: (5 + 17) ÷ 2 = 11 — but a Fibonacci-type sequence isn't arithmetic, so this doesn't apply. −12 comes from subtracting in the wrong order: a₁ − a₃ = 5 − 17 = −12.
- (d) t = 5 — The maximum height occurs halfway between the two times when the ball is at ground level: the midpoint of t = 1 and t = 9 is (1 + 9) ÷ 2 = 5, so the ball reaches its maximum height at t = 5 seconds. Getting t = 4 comes from halving the DIFFERENCE between the times, 9 − 1 = 8, then 8 ÷ 2 = 4, instead of finding their midpoint. Getting t = 8 uses that difference, 9 − 1 = 8, as if the gap between the two times were itself the time of the maximum. Getting t = 10 adds the two times, 1 + 9 = 10, but forgets to divide by 2.
- (a) 2.55 — x₁ = 20 ÷ (2 + 5) = 20 ÷ 7 = 2.857142857. x₂ = 20 ÷ (2.857142857 + 5) = 20 ÷ 7.857142857 = 2.545454545, which rounds to 2.55. Reporting x₁ instead of x₂ gives 2.857142857, which rounds to 2.86. Dropping the +5 in the denominator, using xₙ₊₁ = 20 ÷ xₙ, gives x₁ = 20 ÷ 2 = 10 and x₂ = 20 ÷ 10 = 2, which is 2.00. A sign error in the denominator, using xₙ₊₁ = 20 ÷ (xₙ − 5), gives x₁ = 20 ÷ (2 − 5) = −6.666666667 and x₂ = 20 ÷ (−6.666666667 − 5) = −1.714285714, which rounds to −1.71.
- (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) Underestimate: the chord lies below the curve — For a curve that is concave down (bending downward), the straight line joining any two points on the curve lies BELOW the curve. The trapezium's top edge is this straight line, so the trapezium's area is smaller than the true area under the curve — the trapezium rule UNDERESTIMATES the distance in this case. This is because a curve whose gradient keeps decreasing bends away from any chord joining two of its points, dropping the chord below every point of the curve in between. The reverse, a chord lying above the curve, is the rule for a concave-up curve, not this one — check which way the curve bends before deciding. The trapezium rule does not always overestimate or underestimate, and it is not exact except when the graph really is a straight line.
- (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.
- (b) 1.50 — Substituting (0, 8) gives A = 8, since r⁰ = 1. Substituting (2, 18) gives 8 × r² = 18, so r² = 18 ÷ 8 = 2.25. Taking the square root of 2.25 gives r = 1.50 (2 d.p.). Stopping after finding r² and giving 2.25 as the final answer, without taking the square root, is wrong because r² is not the same as r. Dividing r² by the exponent 2 instead of taking its square root — treating the power as something you divide by rather than root — gives 2.25 ÷ 2 = 1.13 (2 d.p.), which is wrong. Inverting the ratio, working out 8 ÷ 18 instead of 18 ÷ 8, gives 0.44 (2 d.p.), which is wrong because the LATER value must be divided by the EARLIER one to find the growth multiplier, not the other way round.
- (d) 4.521 — x₁ = √(3 × 4 + 7) = √19 = 4.358898944. x₂ = √(3 × 4.358898944 + 7) = √20.076696833 = 4.480702716. x₃ = √(3 × 4.480702716 + 7) = √20.442108148 = 4.521294964, which rounds to 4.521. Mislabelling the starting value x₀ as x₁, so that the working stops one iteration too early, reports the true x₂ = 4.480702716, which rounds to 4.481. Working out one iteration too many reports the true x₄ = √(3 × 4.521294964 + 7) = 4.534741987, which rounds to 4.535. Applying the formula in the wrong order, calculating √(3xₙ) + 7 at every step instead of √(3xₙ + 7), gives, from x₀ = 4: √12 + 7 = 10.464101615, then √(3 × 10.464101615) + 7 = 12.602883619, then √(3 × 12.602883619) + 7 = 13.148873950, which rounds to 13.149.
- (a) 12 — Method: write both ages as they were six years ago, call Leo's present age x, and form an equation from the comparison at that time. Working: six years ago Harry was 24 − 6 = 18 and Leo was x − 6, so 18 = 3(x − 6); expanding gives 18 = 3x − 18, adding 18 to both sides gives 36 = 3x, and dividing by 3 gives x = 12. Checking: six years ago Harry was 18 and Leo was 6, and 18 = 3 × 6. Answer: 12. The distractors: 6 comes from solving 18 = 3(x − 6) as far as Leo's age six years ago, 18 ÷ 3 = 6, and giving that as his age now; 8 comes from dividing Harry's present age by 3, 24 ÷ 3 = 8, using the multiple at the wrong moment in time; 36 comes from stopping at 3x = 36 and giving 36 as Leo's age.
- (b) 158 minutes — Rearranging C = 15 + 0.2m for m: subtract 15 from both sides to get C − 15 = 0.2m, then divide by 0.2: m = (C − 15)/0.2. Substituting C = 46.60: m = (46.60 − 15)/0.2 = 31.60/0.2 = 158. Answering 233 minutes comes from dividing the whole £46.60 by 0.2 without first taking off the £15 fixed charge. Answering 308 minutes comes from adding the £15 instead of subtracting it: (46.60 + 15)/0.2. Answering 218 minutes divides first and subtracts 15 afterwards, in the wrong order: 46.60/0.2 − 15 = 233 − 15 = 218. Ali made 158 minutes of calls.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.