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) 12 cm — For a square, area = side². So side² = 144, giving side = ±12. Since a length must be positive, the side length is 12 cm. A candidate who gives both square roots without rejecting the negative one, which cannot be a length, answers 12 cm or −12 cm. A candidate who halves 144 instead of taking its square root gets 72 cm. A candidate who divides 144 by 4, confusing the area formula with a perimeter calculation, gets 36 cm.
- (b) s = d / t — Method: undo the multiplication by t by dividing both sides by t. Working: d = st, so dividing both sides by t gives s = d / t. The value s = dt comes from multiplying by t instead of dividing. The value s = t / d comes from inverting the fraction, dividing t by d instead of d by t. The value s = d − t comes from subtracting t instead of dividing by it.
- (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.
- (b) 12.7 m/s — Find the total distance from the area under the graph, then divide by the total time. Break the graph into its four straight sections: a triangle from (0, 0) to (5, 20), where 5 × 20 = 100 gives an area of 50 m when halved; a rectangle from (5, 20) to (12, 20), area 7 × 20 = 140 m; a trapezium from (12, 20) to (16, 4), where (20 + 4) × 4 = 96 gives an area of 48 m when halved; and a rectangle from (16, 4) to (20, 4), area 4 × 4 = 16 m — a total distance of 50 + 140 + 48 + 16 = 254 m. Dividing by the 20 seconds gives an average speed of 254 ÷ 20 = 12.7 m/s. Writing 15.1 m/s comes from forgetting to halve the trapezium area for the third section, using 96 instead of 48: a total of 302 m, and 302 ÷ 20 = 15.1 m/s. Writing 11.9 m/s comes from leaving out the final section, from (16, 4) to (20, 4), entirely: a total of 238 m, and 238 ÷ 20 = 11.9 m/s. Writing 12.1 m/s comes from dividing the correct total distance by 21 instead of 20 — a fencepost slip, counting the whole seconds from t = 0 to t = 20 inclusive as 21 seconds of travel rather than reading the journey as a duration of 20 seconds: 254 ÷ 21 = 12.1 m/s (1 d.p.).
- (b) 14 m/s — Average speed for a whole journey is total distance divided by total time: 350 ÷ 25 = 14 m/s. Multiplying the distance and time instead of dividing gives 350 × 25 = 8750 m/s. Adding the distance and time instead of dividing gives 350 + 25 = 375 m/s. Inverting the division, working out time divided by distance, gives 25 ÷ 350, which rounds to 0.07 m/s.
- (b) 12 years — Method: call the number of years t, add t to both ages, and form an equation from the comparison at that future time. Working: in t years the leader will be 44 + t and the scout will be 16 + t, so 44 + t = 2(16 + t); expanding gives 44 + t = 32 + 2t, and subtracting t and 32 from both sides gives t = 12. Checking: in 12 years the leader will be 56 and the scout 28, and 56 = 2 × 28. Answer: 12 years. The distractors: 6 years comes from halving the leader's present age instead, so that the scout has to reach 22, which takes 6 years; 14 years comes from halving the 28-year gap between the two ages; 28 years comes from giving the age gap itself as the number of years.
- (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.
- (a) xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ + 3) — Starting from x³ − 5x − 3 = 0, add 5x and 3 to both sides to get x³ = 5x + 3, then take the cube root of both sides: x = ∛(5x + 3), giving the iterative formula xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ + 3). A sign error when moving the constant term across, treating x³ − 5x − 3 = 0 as x³ = 5x − 3, gives xₙ₊₁ = ∛(5xₙ − 3). Swapping the coefficient of x with the constant term gives xₙ₊₁ = ∛(3xₙ + 5), which does not come from x³ = 5x + 3 at all. Treating cubing as meaning multiply by 3 rather than raise to the power 3, and so undoing it by dividing by 3 instead of taking a cube root, gives xₙ₊₁ = (5xₙ + 3) ÷ 3.
- (d) 168 m — Split the area under the graph into two parts. The rising section (0 to 8 s) is a triangle: area = 0.5 × 8 × 12 = 48. The constant section, from 8 s to 18 s (10 s), is a rectangle: area = 12 × 10 = 120. Total distance = 48 + 120 = 168 m. Leaving out the 0.5 doubles the triangle, giving 8 × 12 + 120 = 216 m; ignoring the triangle section altogether gives only 120 m; averaging the start and final speeds over the whole 18 seconds, (0 + 12) ÷ 2 = 6, then 6 × 18 = 108 m, wrongly treats the tram as accelerating the whole time, when the graph is flat for the last 10 seconds.
- (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.
- (c) 2.61 — The limit L satisfies L = 12 ÷ (L + 2), so L(L + 2) = 12, giving L² + 2L − 12 = 0 and L = (−2 + √52) ÷ 2 = 2.6056, which is 2.61 to 2 decimal places (the early iterates 4, 2, 3, 2.4, 2.73, ... oscillate around this value before settling). Choosing 3.00 reads off x₃, one of the early oscillating values, before the sequence has settled close to the limit. Choosing 4.00 reads off x₁, the very first iterate, not the value the sequence approaches. Choosing 6.00 comes from writing the limit equation as L = 12 ÷ 2, leaving L itself out of the denominator.
- (b) £2.00 — Subtracting the second equation from the first eliminates the pastries: (3c + 2p) − (2c + 2p) = 9.60 − 7.60, so c = 2.00. A candidate who divides the first total by the number of coffees alone, ignoring the pastries, would get 9.60 ÷ 3 = £3.20. A candidate who finds the price of a pastry instead of a coffee — using c = 2.00 in 2c + 2p = 7.60 to get p = 1.80 — would answer £1.80. A candidate who reaches the correct difference of £2.00 but then mistakenly divides again or misplaces the decimal point would get £0.20.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.