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) 3.425 — x₁ = ∛(6 × 3 + 20) = ∛38 = 3.3620 (unrounded, 3.36198...). x₂ = ∛(6 × 3.3620 + 20) = ∛40.172 = 3.425 (3 d.p.). Choosing 3.362 stops at x₁ instead of continuing to x₂. Choosing 2.722 leaves out the '+ 20' inside the root, working out ∛(6 × 3.3620) = ∛20.172 = 2.722. Choosing 0.556 subtracts 20 instead of adding it, working out ∛(6 × 3.3620 − 20) = ∛0.172 = 0.556.
- (d) 2.7 — The height after 3 years of 10% compound growth is 2 × 1.1³ = 2.662 m, which rounds to 2.7 m. A candidate who adds 10% of the original height (0.2 m) in each of the 3 years, instead of compounding on the new height each time, would reach 2 + 3×0.2 = 2.6 m. A candidate who compounds for only 2 years would reach 2 × 1.1² = 2.42 m, rounding to 2.4 m. A candidate who compounds for 4 years instead of 3 would reach 2 × 1.1⁴ = 2.928 m, rounding to 2.9 m.
- (d) 23 — Method: let the smallest integer be n, so the three consecutive integers are n, n + 1 and n + 2. Form the equation n + (n + 1) + (n + 2) = 72. Working: simplify the left side: 3n + 3 = 72, so 3n = 69, giving n = 23. Answer: 23. 24 comes from dividing 72 by 3 directly, 72 ÷ 3 = 24, which finds the middle integer rather than realising the three numbers differ. 25 comes from correctly finding n = 23 but reading off the largest integer, n + 2, instead of the smallest as asked. 21 comes from dividing first and subtracting after, (72 ÷ 3) − 3, instead of subtracting 3 before dividing by 3.
- (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.
- (a) 3.5 km/h — Average speed is total distance ÷ total time. Total distance = 5 + 9 = 14 km. Total time, including the rest, = 1 + 1 + 2 = 4 hours. So average speed = 14 ÷ 4 = 3.5 km/h. Leaving out the 1 hour rest and dividing by only the 3 hours of walking gives 14 ÷ 3 = 4.67 km/h. Averaging the two separate speeds, 5 km/h and 4.5 km/h, instead of using total distance over total time, gives (5 + 4.5) ÷ 2 = 4.75 km/h. Dividing only the second leg's distance by the total time, 9 ÷ 4 = 2.25 km/h, ignores the first leg's distance.
- (d) 400 m — The distance travelled equals the area under the speed-time graph. The first 10 seconds form a triangle with base 10 and height 20, giving an area of 0.5 × 10 × 20 = 100 m. The next 15 seconds form a rectangle with base 15 and height 20, giving an area of 15 × 20 = 300 m. The total distance is 100 + 300 = 400 m. The option 500 m treats the whole 25 seconds as travelled at the constant 20 m/s, ignoring that the speed was building up during the first 10 seconds: 25 × 20 = 500. The option 300 m only counts the constant-speed section and forgets the triangle section entirely. The option 200 m comes from working out the triangle's area without halving it (10 × 20 = 200) and forgetting the rectangle altogether.
- (c) No — that moment has already passed — Method: call the number of years from now x, add x to both ages, form the equation from the comparison and then interpret the value of x that comes out. Working: in x years Harry will be 14 + x and Mia will be 8 + x, so 14 + x = 2(8 + x); expanding gives 14 + x = 16 + 2x, and subtracting x and 16 from both sides gives x = −2. A negative value of x places the moment two years in the past, when Harry was 12 and Mia was 6 and 12 = 2 × 6, so it is not something still to come. Answer: no — that moment has already passed. The distractors: the claim that it has never happened and never will comes from reaching x = −2 and reading a negative number of years as no solution at all, when x = −2 does not say that no such moment exists but says where it is — two years before now; the claim that it happens when Harry is 16 comes from doubling Mia's present age, 2 × 8 = 16, and reading that as the age Harry has to reach; the claim that it happens when Harry is 20 comes from expanding 2(8 + x) as 8 + 2x, doubling only the x, which gives x = 6.
- (a) 4n + 1 — Method: find the increase in cost per hour, then find the constant by adjusting the 1-hour cost. Working: the cost goes up by £4 for each extra hour (9 − 5 = 4), so the coefficient of n is 4. The constant is the 1-hour cost minus the common difference: 5 − 4 = 1. Answer: the nth term is 4n + 1. 4n + 5 comes from using the 1-hour cost, 5, as the constant without subtracting the common difference. 4n − 3 comes from a slip in working out the constant, subtracting the common difference twice (5 − 4 − 4 = −3) instead of once. n + 4 comes from swapping the hourly increase and the constant.
- (d) 5 — Method: rearrange the formula to make m the subject, then substitute F = 15.50. Working: F = 3 + 2.5m, so subtracting 3 from both sides gives F − 3 = 2.5m, then dividing by 2.5 gives m = (F − 3) / 2.5. Substituting F = 15.50: m = (15.50 − 3) / 2.5 = 12.50 / 2.5 = 5. The value 6.2 comes from dividing 15.50 by 2.5 without subtracting the fixed £3 first. The value 3.2 comes from dividing first and subtracting afterwards, in the wrong order: (15.50 / 2.5) − 3 = 3.2. The value 7.4 comes from adding £3 instead of subtracting it before dividing: (15.50 + 3) / 2.5 = 7.4.
- (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) 2 < x < 6 — Factorise: x² − 8x + 12 = (x − 2)(x − 6), giving roots at x = 2 and x = 6. Since the coefficient of x² is positive, the graph is a U-shape that is negative, below the axis, between its roots. So P < 0 for 2 < x < 6. Distractor routes: x < 2 or x > 6 takes the region outside the roots, which is where P is positive, a profit, the opposite of a loss. 2 ≤ x ≤ 6 includes the endpoints, where P = 0 exactly, break-even rather than a loss, since the inequality is strict. −6 < x < −2 comes from factorising as (x + 2)(x + 6), reversing the sign of both roots.
- (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.
- (a) £50 — Substituting x = 200 into y = 0.15x + 20 gives y = 0.15 × 200 + 20 = 30 + 20 = £50. A candidate who forgets to add the standing charge would get only 0.15 × 200 = £30. A candidate who misplaces the decimal point in the rate, using 1.5 instead of 0.15, would get 1.5 × 200 + 20 = £320. A candidate who swaps the roles of the rate and the number of units would work out 0.15 × 20 + 200 = £203.
- (b) 8 kg — The cost above the flat £5 charge is 17 − 5 = £12. At £2 per kg, this covers 12 ÷ 2 = 6 kg above the first 2 kg, so the total weight is 2 + 6 = 8 kg. Dividing the full £17 by £2 per kg without first taking off the £5 flat charge gives 17 ÷ 2 = 8.5 kg. Taking off the £5 flat charge and dividing by £2 per kg, but forgetting to add back the 2 kg that the flat charge covers, gives 12 ÷ 2 = 6 kg. Taking off £2 instead of £5 as the flat charge, (17 − 2) ÷ 2 = 7.5 kg, swaps which number is the fixed fee.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.