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) 271 m — The reading at t = 12 isn't in the table, so it must be interpolated between t = 10 (35 m/s) and t = 14 (27 m/s): the velocity falls by 8 m/s over the 4-second gap, so over 2 seconds it falls by 4 m/s, giving 35 − 4 = 31 m/s. The trapezium rule then uses three strips of unequal width, 4, 6 and 2 seconds, with areas of 40, 165 and 66: 40 + 165 + 66 = 271 m. Writing 267 m comes from skipping the interpolation and using the table's t = 14 reading, 27, directly as the height at t = 12. Writing 282 m comes from treating all three strips as though they were 4 seconds wide, instead of using the true gaps of 4, 6 and 2 seconds between the readings. Writing 275 m comes from using the t = 10 reading, 35, at both ends of the final strip, instead of interpolating a new value at t = 12.
- (c) 17.7 cm — Method: the iteration converges on x, the depth of the box, which is also the side of each square cut away; a square is removed from both ends of the 20 cm side, so the longer side of the base is 20 − 2x. Run the formula three times, then carry out that subtraction. Working: x₁ = (16 × 1² − 1³ + 50) ÷ 60 = 65 ÷ 60 = 1.08333…; x₂ = 67.50636… ÷ 60 = 1.12510…; x₃ = 68.82959… ÷ 60 = 1.14715…. The longer side of the base is 20 − 2 × 1.14715… = 17.70568…, which is 17.7 cm correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 17.7 cm. The distractors: 1.1 cm is x₃ itself rounded, the depth of the box, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 18.9 cm is 20 − 1.14715…, taking away one square instead of two and forgetting that a corner is cut from each end of that side; 9.7 cm is 12 − 2 × 1.14715…, the shorter side of the base, which measures the wrong edge of the sheet.
- (b) 10 km — Method: find the constant speed from the graph (distance ÷ time for any point on the line), then multiply that speed by 20 minutes. Working: the line passes through (4 minutes, 2 km), so the speed is 2 ÷ 4 = 0.5 km per minute; in 20 minutes the cyclist travels 0.5 × 20 = 10 km. Answer: 10 km. Distractor refutation: 3 km comes from reading off the distance shown at the end of the plotted section (6 minutes) and stopping there, instead of extending the line to 20 minutes. 20 km comes from misreading the speed as 1 km per minute instead of 0.5 km per minute, doubling the true rate. 40 km comes from dividing 20 by the speed instead of multiplying by it, a reciprocal mix-up.
- (d) 7 — Method: set up the equation 2.50 + 1.80m = 15.10, then subtract the booking fee and divide by the cost per mile. Working: 1.80m = 15.10 − 2.50 = 12.60; m = 12.60 ÷ 1.80 = 7. Answer: 7 miles. 8.39 comes from dividing the whole £15.10 by £1.80 without first subtracting the booking fee: 15.10 ÷ 1.80 ≈ 8.39. 5.32 comes from swapping the two amounts round, subtracting £1.80 and dividing by £2.50: (15.10 − 1.80) ÷ 2.50 ≈ 5.32. 9.78 comes from adding the booking fee instead of subtracting it: (15.10 + 2.50) ÷ 1.80 ≈ 9.78.
- (d) 2 — The gradient between two points on a line is the change in y divided by the change in x. Using (5, 2) and (0, −8): (2 − (−8)) ÷ (5 − 0) = 10 ÷ 5 = 2. Inverting the fraction, dividing the change in x by the change in y instead, gives 5 ÷ 10 = 0.5. Reversing the order of the x-values in the denominator, giving (2 − (−8)) ÷ (0 − 5) = 10 ÷ (−5), gives −2. Misreading the y-intercept as 8 instead of −8, giving (2 − 8) ÷ 5 = −6 ÷ 5, gives −1.2.
- (a) 27 — Method: let the smaller number be n, so the larger number is n + 9. Form the equation n + (n + 9) = 45. Working: simplify: 2n + 9 = 45, so 2n = 36, giving n = 18. The larger number is 18 + 9 = 27. Answer: 27. 18 is the smaller number, found correctly, but given as the answer to the question asking for the larger number. 22.5 comes from ignoring the "9 more" part and simply halving the total, 45 ÷ 2. 36 comes from a sign error when isolating the constant, treating the equation as 2n = 45 + 9 instead of 2n = 45 − 9.
- (d) The cost increases by about £10 per extra item — Gradient = change in cost ÷ change in items = (800 − 400) ÷ (70 − 30) = 400 ÷ 40 = 10. The units of the gradient are £ per item, so the cost is increasing by about £10 for every extra item produced, near x = 50. Subtracting in the wrong order, (400 − 800) ÷ (70 − 30) = −10, gives the right size but the wrong sign — check which point comes first each time. Leaving out the division by 40 gives £400 per item; dividing the wrong way round, 40 ÷ 400 = 0.1, gives £0.10 per item.
- (d) It has a solution between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3 — Since f(2.2) is negative and f(2.3) is positive, the graph of f crosses the x-axis somewhere between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3, so the equation has a solution in that interval. Choosing 'between x = −2.2 and x = −2.3' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.2 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no solution' misreads a change of sign as meaning the opposite of what it shows. Choosing 'exactly two solutions' assumes a single change of sign must give two roots, which is not what the rule guarantees.
- (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.
- (d) x = −2, y = −5 — 3x² + 12x + 7 rewrites as 3(x² + 4x) + 7, then as 3[(x + 2)² − 4] + 7, which simplifies to 3(x + 2)² − 5, since −3 × 4 + 7 = −5. Substituting x = −2: 3 × (−2)² = 12, 12 × (−2) = −24, so 12 − 24 + 7 = −5, confirming the minimum value −5 at x = −2: turning point x = −2, y = −5. Halving b instead of halving b/a — using −4 as the shift instead of −2 — lands on turning point x = −4, y = −41, which is wrong because when a ≠ 1 the shift inside the bracket is b/(2a), not b/a alone. Reading the bracket's sign directly as the turning point's x-coordinate gives x = 2, y = −5 — wrong, because (x + 2)² is zero at x = −2, not x = 2. Computing 12 − 7 = 5 instead of 7 − 12 = −5 flips the sign of the constant, giving x = −2, y = 5 — wrong, since the completed square's constant must be evaluated as 7 minus 12, not 12 minus 7. Whenever a ≠ 1, factor a out of the x² and x terms first, and always check a turning point by substituting back into the original equation.
- (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) 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.
- (d) £16.70 — The mileage charge is 2.20 × 6 = £13.20. Adding the fixed fee: £13.20 + £3.50 = £16.70. A candidate who forgets the fixed fee gives just the mileage charge, £13.20. A candidate who adds the fixed fee to the per-mile rate before multiplying by the number of miles, (3.50 + 2.20) × 6, gets £34.20. A candidate who rounds £2.20 down to £2 gets 2 × 6 + 3.50 = £15.50.
- (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.
- (c) 14.1 — Method: in x² + y² = r² the right-hand side is the square of the radius, so take its square root to find the radius, then double the radius because the diameter is twice the radius. Working: r² = 50, so r = √50 = 7.07106…, and the diameter is 2 × 7.07106… = 14.14213…, which is 14.1 correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 14.1. The distractors: 7.1 is the radius, worked out correctly but never doubled, so it answers a question about the radius rather than the diameter; 100.0 comes from doubling the 50 on the right-hand side, treating r² as though it were already the radius; 25.0 comes from halving the 50, treating r² as though it were already the diameter.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.