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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (a) Tuesday, by 2 km/h — Monday's speed is 15 ÷ 2.5 = 6 km/h and Tuesday's speed is 12 ÷ 1.5 = 8 km/h, so Tuesday was faster, by 8 − 6 = 2 km/h. A candidate who works out the correct speeds but mislabels which day is faster gets Monday, by 2 km/h. A candidate who divides 15 ÷ 2.5 incorrectly as 5 instead of 6 gets a difference of 8 − 5 = 3 km/h, still crediting Tuesday. A candidate who forgets to find Monday's speed and gives Tuesday's speed itself as the difference states Tuesday, by 8 km/h.
- (d) £20 — Let f be the joining fee and m the monthly fee: f + 3m = 100 and f + 6m = 160. Subtracting the first equation from the second eliminates f: 3m = 60, so m = 20. A candidate who finds the joining fee instead of the monthly fee would get f = 100 − 3(20) = £40. A candidate who divides Ben's total by his number of months, ignoring that part of the cost is a fixed joining fee, would get 160 ÷ 6 ≈ £26.67. A candidate who divides the difference in cost by the total number of months instead of the difference in months would get (160 − 100) ÷ 9 ≈ £6.67.
- (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.
- (d) 110 — Method: form the equation 15 + 0.08m = 23.80, where m is the number of minutes, then solve for m. Working: subtract the fixed fee: 0.08m = 23.80 − 15 = 8.80. Divide by the cost per minute: m = 8.80 ÷ 0.08 = 110. Answer: 110 minutes. 1.1 comes from using 8 instead of 0.08 as the cost per minute, forgetting to convert pence to pounds. 297.5 comes from dividing the whole bill by the cost per minute without subtracting the fixed fee first, 23.80 ÷ 0.08. 485 comes from adding the fixed fee to the bill instead of subtracting it, before dividing by the cost per minute, (23.80 + 15) ÷ 0.08.
- (d) 12 — Since a₃ = a₂ + a₁, rearranging gives a₂ = a₃ − a₁ = 17 − 5 = 12. 22 comes from adding instead of subtracting: a₃ + a₁ = 17 + 5 = 22. 11 comes from treating the sequence as if it were arithmetic and averaging the two given terms: (5 + 17) ÷ 2 = 11 — but a Fibonacci-type sequence isn't arithmetic, so this doesn't apply. −12 comes from subtracting in the wrong order: a₁ − a₃ = 5 − 17 = −12.
- (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) 1 hour 32 minutes — T = 40 × 1.8 + 20 = 72 + 20 = 92 minutes. Since 92 = 60 + 32, the cooking time is 1 hour 32 minutes. A candidate who rounds the mass to 2 kg before substituting gets 40 × 2 + 20 = 100 minutes = 1 hour 40 minutes. A candidate who forgets to add the 20 minutes gets 40 × 1.8 = 72 minutes = 1 hour 12 minutes. A candidate who multiplies the mass by (40 + 20) = 60 instead of substituting into the formula gets 1.8 × 60 = 108 minutes = 1 hour 48 minutes.
- (c) 5 — Method: call the number of years ago t, take t off both ages, and form an equation from the comparison at that time. Working: t years ago the father was 40 − t and Ethan was 10 − t, so 40 − t = 7(10 − t); expanding gives 40 − t = 70 − 7t, adding 7t to both sides gives 40 + 6t = 70, subtracting 40 gives 6t = 30, and dividing by 6 gives t = 5. Checking: five years ago the father was 35 and Ethan was 5, and 35 = 7 × 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 35 comes from finding the right moment but giving the father's age at that time instead of the number of years; 30 comes from using Ethan's present age on the right-hand side, 40 − t = 7 × 10, which gives t = −30 and is then written as 30; 24 comes from reaching 6t = 30 correctly and subtracting 6 instead of dividing by 6.
- (a) 25 — Gradient = change in y ÷ change in x = (100 − 0) ÷ (4 − 0) = 100 ÷ 4 = 25. Dividing time by distance instead of distance by time gives 0.04; multiplying the two values instead of dividing gives 400; stopping at the change in distance, 100, forgets to divide by the change in time.
- (b) f(1) = −3 and f(2) = 3 — f(1) = 1³ − 1 − 3 = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3. f(2) = 2³ − 2 − 3 = 8 − 2 − 3 = 3. Since f(1) is negative and f(2) is positive, there is a change of sign, so a solution lies between x = 1 and x = 2. Dropping the −x term entirely gives f(1) = 1 − 3 = −2 and f(2) = 8 − 3 = 5. Using x² instead of x³ throughout gives f(1) = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3, which happens to coincide with the correct value at x = 1, but f(2) = 4 − 2 − 3 = −1, which does not show a change of sign at all. Working out −f(x) instead of f(x), a sign-flip error, gives f(1) = 3 and f(2) = −3, the correct sizes but with both signs reversed.
- (d) 680 m — First find how long the acceleration takes: acceleration = change in speed ÷ time, so 2.5 = 20 ÷ t, giving t = 20 ÷ 2.5 = 8 seconds. The distance during this phase is the area of a triangle with base 8 and height 20: 1/2 × 8 × 20 = 80 m. The distance during the constant-speed phase is 20 × 30 = 600 m, since distance = speed × time at a constant speed. The total distance is 80 + 600 = 680 m. Using the given 30 seconds for the acceleration phase as well, 1/2 × 30 × 20 = 300, plus the correct 600, gives 900 m — but 30 seconds is only stated for the constant-speed phase. Leaving out the 1/2 and using the full rectangle for the acceleration phase, 8 × 20 = 160, plus the correct 600, gives 760 m — the speed is not constant during acceleration, so this area is a triangle, not a rectangle. Swapping the two times round, and using 8 seconds for the constant-speed distance instead of 30, 20 × 8 = 160, plus the correct triangle area of 80, gives 240 m.
- (d) 44 m — The trapezium rule between t = 2 and t = 5 uses only the speeds at t = 2, 3, 4 and 5 — 12, 15, 16 and 14 — with three strips of width 1: adding the first and last readings and twice the sum of the middle readings gives 12 + 14 + 2 × (15 + 16) = 88, and half of that is 44 m. Writing 68.5 m comes from applying the trapezium rule to the whole table, from t = 0 to t = 6, instead of restricting it to the interval t = 2 to t = 5 that the question asks for. Writing 28.5 m comes from forgetting to double the two middle readings, 15 and 16, in the trapezium rule formula. Writing 39 m comes from averaging only the first and last speeds in the interval, 12 and 14, and multiplying by the 3-second interval, ignoring the readings at t = 3 and t = 4 in between.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.