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
- (b) x² + y² = 1369 — For a circle centred at the origin, the radius squared equals the sum of the squares of the coordinates of any point on it: r² = 12² + 35² = 144 + 1225 = 1369. The equation is x² + y² = 1369. x² + y² = 2209 comes from adding the coordinates first and then squaring the sum: (12 + 35)² = 47² = 2209, instead of squaring each coordinate separately. x² + y² = 1225 comes from using only 35² and leaving out the 12² term. x² + y² = 144 comes from using only 12² and leaving out the 35² term.
- (d) 300 m — For a constant speed, the speed-time graph is a horizontal line, and the area underneath is a rectangle: distance = speed × time = 15 × 20 = 300 m. Adding the two numbers instead of multiplying gives 35 m; dividing instead of multiplying gives 1.33 m; halving the product, as you would for a triangle, gives 7.5 m — but this section of the graph is a rectangle, not a triangle, so there is no halving to do.
- (c) 4.30 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, then feed each value back in, keeping the whole display and respecting the order of operations, which divides before it subtracts. Working: x₁ = 5 − 3 ÷ 2.5 = 5 − 1.2 = 3.8; x₂ = 5 − 3 ÷ 3.8 = 5 − 0.78947… = 4.21052…; x₃ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.21052… = 5 − 0.7125 = 4.2875; x₄ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.2875 = 5 − 0.69970… = 4.30029…, which is 4.30 correct to 3 significant figures. Answer: 4.30. The distractors: 4.29 is x₃ = 4.2875 rounded, reached by counting the starting value itself as the first iterate and so stopping one use of the formula early; 3.80 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula; 2.50 comes from working out (5 − 3) ÷ xₙ instead of 5 − (3 ÷ xₙ), subtracting before dividing, which produces the sequence 0.8, 2.5, 0.8, 2.5 and lands on 2.5 at the fourth step.
- (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) y = −3x/4 + 25 — Method: a straight line that touches a circle at one point is a tangent there, so it is perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point; find the gradient of the radius, take its negative reciprocal, then substitute the point of contact into y − y₁ = m(x − x₁). Working: the radius from (0, 0) to (12, 16) has gradient 16 ÷ 12, which cancels to 4/3, so the tangent has gradient −3/4. Substituting gives y − 16 = −3/4(x − 12), so y − 16 = −3x/4 + 9 and y = −3x/4 + 25. Answer: y = −3x/4 + 25. The distractors: y = 3x/4 + 7 turns the gradient of the radius upside down but leaves it positive, so the perpendicular step is only half done; y = −4x/3 + 32 changes the sign of the radius gradient without turning it upside down, which is the other half left undone; y = −3x/4 − 25 uses the correct gradient but substitutes the point of contact with both signs reversed, writing y + 16 = −3/4(x + 12).
- (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) 21.6 — m² = (−2.4)² = 5.76, since a negative number squared is positive, so 5m² = 28.8. Then 3m = 3 × (−2.4) = −7.2. Total: 28.8 + (−7.2) = 21.6. −36 comes from taking m² as negative, 5 × (−5.76) − 7.2 = −36, forgetting that squaring removes the negative sign. 36 comes from ignoring the negative sign on m altogether and using m = 2.4 throughout. 29.4 comes from treating 3m as 3 + m instead of 3 × m, giving 28.8 + (3 + (−2.4)).
- (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) It gets closer to zero but never actually reaches it. — y = 60 × (0.5)ˣ is always positive, however large x is, because a positive number raised to any power stays positive. As x increases, (0.5)ˣ gets smaller and smaller but never equals zero, so y approaches zero without ever reaching it. Believing the curve reaches zero when x = 60, because 60 is the starting value, mixes up the y-intercept with a stopping point — an exponential decay curve like this one never actually reaches the x-axis, so this is wrong. Believing the curve goes negative for large x is wrong because multiplying a positive number by (0.5) any number of times can never produce a negative result. Believing the curve levels off at y = 0.5, confusing the base of the exponential with its eventual level, is wrong: the base only controls how fast the curve falls, not where it settles — this curve settles at y = 0, not y = 0.5. Whenever you sketch an exponential decay curve, draw it approaching the x-axis but never touching it.
- (a) 2.154 — Continuing xₙ₊₁ = ∛(3xₙ + 4) from x₁ = 2.154 gives x₂ = 2.187, x₃ = 2.195, settling towards the root near 2.196 — this is the formula that converges. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ³ − 4) ÷ 3 from x₁ = 1.333 gives x₂ = −0.543 and then x₃ = −1.387, moving further from the root each time. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = 4 ÷ (xₙ² − 3) from x₁ = 4 gives x₂ = 0.308 and then x₃ = −1.377, swinging wildly rather than settling. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = xₙ³ − 2xₙ − 4 from x₁ = 0 gives x₂ = −4 and then x₃ = −60, running away from the root entirely.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) t = 0 or t = 4 — The ball is at ground level exactly when h = 0. From the table, h = 0 at t = 0 and at t = 4, so those are the two times. Distractor origins: t = 1 or t = 3 picks the times with equal (but non-zero) height instead of ground level; t = 2 picks the time of maximum height instead of ground level; t = 0 finds only the starting time and misses the second one.
- (b) 1.6 m/s² — Acceleration is the change in velocity divided by the time taken: (11 − 3) ÷ 5 = 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6 m/s². Forgetting to subtract the initial velocity and dividing the final velocity by the time instead gives 11 ÷ 5 = 2.2 m/s². Inverting the fraction, dividing the time by the change in velocity, gives 5 ÷ 8 = 0.625 m/s². Finding the change in velocity, 8 m/s, but stopping without dividing by the time gives 8 m/s².
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.