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) 3 — Method: a term is any part of an expression separated from the rest by a + or − sign, including a number on its own. Working: 8 − 3x + 5x² splits at the + and − signs into 8, −3x and 5x² — that is three separate terms. Answer: 3. Ryan's answer of 2 comes from wrongly excluding the number 8, thinking a term must contain a letter. 5 comes from miscounting by treating the coefficients and powers as separate terms as well as the letters. 1 comes from treating the whole expression as a single term because it is written without brackets.
- (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.
- (c) 4 years — The yearly multiplier is 1 − 0.12 = 0.88. After 1 year: 2400 × 0.88 = 2112. After 2 years: 2112 × 0.88 = 1858.56. After 3 years: 1858.56 × 0.88 = 1635.5328. After 4 years: 1635.5328 × 0.88 = 1439.27 (2 d.p.), which is the first value below £1,500 — so it takes 4 complete years. Stopping after 3 years, where the value is still £1,635.53, above £1,500, gives 3 years — wrong, because the threshold has not been crossed yet at that point. Continuing for one year longer than needed gives 5 years — wrong, because the value has already fallen below £1,500 by year 4, so year 5 overcounts. Multiplying by the percentage itself instead of by the multiplier — using 0.12 in place of 0.88 — gives 2400 × 0.12 = £288 after a single year, apparently below £1,500 straight away, so 1 year — wrong, because 12% is the part lost each year, and the part left is 88%, so the multiplier is 0.88.
- (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.
- (a) 842.0 — The radius to (20, 21) has gradient 21/20, so the tangent's gradient is −20/21. The tangent line is y − 21 = −20/21(x − 20), i.e. y = −20/21x + 841/21. Setting y = 0 gives the x-intercept x = 841/20 = 42.05; setting x = 0 gives the y-intercept y = 841/21 ≈ 40.048. The area of triangle OPQ is 1/2 × 42.05 × 40.048 ≈ 842.0. 1684.0 comes from multiplying the two intercepts without the 1/2 that a triangle's area needs — twice the correct area. 580.7 comes from using the circle's radius, 29, as a side of the triangle instead of the x-intercept, 42.05: 1/2 × 29 × 40.048 ≈ 580.7. 2.0 comes from a sign error in the tangent's gradient — using 20/21 instead of −20/21 — which gives a different line, with intercepts x ≈ −2.05 and y ≈ 1.952, and area 1/2 × 2.05 × 1.952 ≈ 2.0.
- (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.
- (a) 1.36 — Method: put the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, feed that value back in to get x₂, and round only once the second value has been found. Working: x₁ = 5 ÷ (1 + 2) = 5 ÷ 3 = 1.66666…; x₂ = 5 ÷ (1.66666… + 2) = 5 ÷ 3.66666… = 1.36363…. The digit in the third decimal place is 3, so x₂ = 1.36 correct to 2 decimal places. Answer: 1.36. The distractors: 1.67 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula, given by a candidate who counts the starting value itself as x₁; 1.49 is x₃ = 1.48648…, one use of the formula too many; 1.37 comes from writing x₁ down as 1.66, truncating the display instead of keeping it in full, and then working out 5 ÷ 3.66 = 1.36612…, which rounds up to 1.37.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) No — that moment has already passed — Method: call the number of years from now x, add x to both ages, form the equation from the comparison and then interpret the value of x that comes out. Working: in x years Harry will be 14 + x and Mia will be 8 + x, so 14 + x = 2(8 + x); expanding gives 14 + x = 16 + 2x, and subtracting x and 16 from both sides gives x = −2. A negative value of x places the moment two years in the past, when Harry was 12 and Mia was 6 and 12 = 2 × 6, so it is not something still to come. Answer: no — that moment has already passed. The distractors: the claim that it has never happened and never will comes from reaching x = −2 and reading a negative number of years as no solution at all, when x = −2 does not say that no such moment exists but says where it is — two years before now; the claim that it happens when Harry is 16 comes from doubling Mia's present age, 2 × 8 = 16, and reading that as the age Harry has to reach; the claim that it happens when Harry is 20 comes from expanding 2(8 + x) as 8 + 2x, doubling only the x, which gives x = 6.
- (b) 2 < x < 6 — Factorise: x² − 8x + 12 = (x − 2)(x − 6), giving roots at x = 2 and x = 6. Since the coefficient of x² is positive, the graph is a U-shape that is negative, below the axis, between its roots. So P < 0 for 2 < x < 6. Distractor routes: x < 2 or x > 6 takes the region outside the roots, which is where P is positive, a profit, the opposite of a loss. 2 ≤ x ≤ 6 includes the endpoints, where P = 0 exactly, break-even rather than a loss, since the inequality is strict. −6 < x < −2 comes from factorising as (x + 2)(x + 6), reversing the sign of both roots.
- (d) 8 — Working backwards by halving (undoing the doubling), one 4-hour step at a time: 9,600 (20 h) → 4,800 (16 h) → 2,400 (12 h) → 1,200 (8 h) → 600 (4 h) → 300 (0 h). Reading these in time order — 300, 600, 1,200, 2,400, 4,800, 9,600 at 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 hours — the population is still at or below 1,000 at 4 hours (600) and first goes above 1,000 at 8 hours (1,200). So the recorded population first exceeds 1,000 at 8 hours. Answering 20 just reads off the time stated in the question, without working out when the threshold was actually first crossed — wrong, because 9,600 is only the value AT 20 hours, not necessarily the first time the population passed 1,000. Answering 0 comes from recovering the starting population by dividing 9,600 by 5 (the number of 4-hour gaps up to 20 hours) instead of by 2⁵ = 32 (the correct number of halvings), giving a wrongly-inflated starting value of 9,600 ÷ 5 = 1,920 — already above 1,000 at 0 hours — wrong, because doubling means the value must be halved five times, dividing by 2 five times (2⁵ = 32), not divided once by the number of gaps. Answering 12 comes from halving back only twice, from 9,600 to 4,800 (16 h) to 2,400 (12 h), and stopping there because 2,400 is already above 1,000, without checking that 1,200 at 8 hours is also above 1,000 and occurs earlier — wrong, because the FIRST recorded time above 1,000 is the earliest such time, not the first one reached while working backwards from 20 hours.
- (a) 23 — The number of logs increases by 4 for each layer down, starting from 3 in the top layer, so the nth layer has 3+(n−1)×4 logs. For the 6th layer: 3+5×4=3+20=23. A candidate who adds the difference of 4 six times instead of five, treating the top layer as needing an addition too, would compute 3+6×4=27. A candidate who uses 4n instead of 4n−1, omitting the adjustment for the first layer, would compute 4×6=24. A candidate who subtracts the common difference, 4, instead of 1 when adjusting the multiplier would compute 4×6−4=20.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.