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
- (c) x = −2 or x = 4 — The solutions of x² − 2x − 8 = 0 are the x-values where y = 0. From the table, y = 0 when x = −2 and when x = 4, so those are the two solutions. Distractor origins: x = −1 or x = 3 picks the pair of x-values that give equal (but non-zero) y-values instead of y = 0; x = 0 or x = −8 mixes up an x-value with its corresponding y-value; x = −2 only reads off one of the two roots and misses the other.
- (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.
- (d) 45 — v = s ÷ t = 180 ÷ 4 = 45 km/h. 720 comes from multiplying s and t instead of dividing, 180 × 4. 184 comes from adding s and t instead of dividing, 180 + 4. 176 comes from subtracting t from s instead of dividing, 180 − 4.
- (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.
- (b) 6x + 6 — Perimeter = 2[(2x + 5) + (x − 2)] = 2(3x + 3) = 6x + 6. A candidate who adds the length and width but forgets to double for the perimeter gets 3x + 3. A candidate who makes a sign error and adds 2 instead of subtracting it before doubling gets 2[(2x + 5) + (x + 2)] = 6x + 14. A candidate who multiplies the length and width instead of adding them, confusing the perimeter formula with the area formula, and then doubles that product, gets 2(2x + 5)(x − 2) = 4x² + 2x − 20.
- (a) 4.897 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side of the formula to get x₁, then feed each new value back in, keeping the whole calculator display every time and rounding only at the very end. Working: x₁ = √(5 × 2 + 2) = √12 = 3.46410…; x₂ = √(5 × 3.46410… + 2) = √19.32050… = 4.39551…; x₃ = √(5 × 4.39551… + 2) = √23.97755… = 4.89668…, which is 4.897 correct to 3 decimal places. Answer: 4.897. The distractors: 4.396 is x₂, written down by a candidate who counts the starting value x₀ as the first iterate and so stops one use of the formula early; 3.464 is x₁, the value after using the formula only once; 5.146 is x₄, one use of the formula too many — the mirror image of the first slip, made by a candidate who labels the first value worked out as x₀ rather than as x₁ and so runs the count a step long.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (b) 3 and 4 — Method: the graph of f(x) is continuous, so where it crosses the x-axis the value of f(x) changes sign; substitute consecutive integers until one value is negative and the next is positive. Working: f(2) = 8 − 6 − 20 = −18, f(3) = 27 − 9 − 20 = −2 and f(4) = 64 − 12 − 20 = 32. The sign changes from negative to positive between x = 3 and x = 4, so the solution lies there. Answer: 3 and 4. The distractors: 2 and 3 comes from ignoring the −3x term and solving x³ = 20, whose root is 2.71, one interval to the left; 6 and 7 comes from reading x³ as x² and solving x² − 3x − 20 = 0, whose positive root is 6.22; 4 and 5 is the interval immediately after the change of sign, named by a candidate who finds f(4) positive and quotes the interval beginning there instead of the one across which the sign actually turned.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 58.8 km/h — Total distance = 100 + 47 = 147 km. Total time = 1.5 + 0.25 + 0.75 = 2.5 hours. Average speed = 147 ÷ 2.5 = 58.8 km/h. Leaving out the 0.25 hours of waiting from the total time gives 147 ÷ 2.25 = 65.3 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because the train is stationary but time is still passing on the whole journey. Using only the first leg gives 100 ÷ 1.5 = 66.7 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because it ignores the second leg of the journey entirely. Working out each leg's own speed (100 ÷ 1.5 = 66.7 km/h and 47 ÷ 0.75 = 62.7 km/h) and then averaging those two speeds gives 64.7 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because the average of two speeds over DIFFERENT times is not the same as total distance divided by total time.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.