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
- (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.
- (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.
- (a) Subtracting 4x gives 3 = 10, which is never true. — Method: try to solve the equation as normal and see what happens. Working: subtract 4x from both sides: 4x + 3 − 4x = 4x + 10 − 4x, giving 3 = 10. This statement is false for every value of x, so the equation has no solution. Answer: subtracting 4x gives 3 = 10, which is never true. "x would have to be negative" invents a constraint on x that the equation never states. "It's true for every x" confuses this equation with an identity, where both sides would simplify to the same expression. "x = 7" misreads the false statement 3 = 10 as something to solve for x, rather than recognising it means no solution exists.
- (b) 118 m — Width = 840 ÷ 35 = 24 m. Perimeter = 2 × (length + width) = 2 × (35 + 24) = 2 × 59 = 118 m. The option 59 m gives the sum of the length and width but forgets to double it for the perimeter. The option 70 m doubles only the length (2 × 35 = 70) and leaves out the width entirely. The option 48 m doubles only the width (2 × 24 = 48) and leaves out the length entirely.
- (c) The sequence diverges, moving away from x = 3 — Starting from x₀ = 2.9: x₁ = 2.9² − 6 = 2.41, x₂ = 2.41² − 6 = −0.19, x₃ = (−0.19)² − 6 = −5.96, x₄ = (−5.96)² − 6 = 29.56 — the values swing away from 3 and grow rapidly, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Choosing 'settles towards x = 3' assumes that starting close to a root is enough for a rearrangement to converge to it, which is not always true — this rearrangement changes values too steeply near x = 3 to stay there. Choosing 'settles towards x = −2' assumes a diverging sequence must eventually land on the other root; instead it runs away to increasingly large values. Choosing 'stays constant at 2.9' ignores that applying the formula changes the value at every step.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 40 — From 9am to 12 noon is 3 hours, so the population doubles three times: 5 × 2³ = 40. A candidate who counts the elapsed time as 4 hours (an off-by-one counting error) would reach 5 × 2⁴ = 80. A candidate who counts it as only 2 hours would reach 5 × 2² = 20. A candidate who misreads 'doubles' as 'increases by 2' each hour would compute 5 + 3 × 2 = 11.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 1.861 — x₁ = ∛(10 − 2²) = ∛6 = 1.817120593. x₂ = ∛(10 − 1.817120593²) = ∛6.698072751 = 1.885022855. x₃ = ∛(10 − 1.885022855²) = ∛6.446688837 = 1.861139399, which rounds to 1.861. Reporting x₂ instead of x₃ gives 1.885022855, which rounds to 1.885. Stopping after the first iteration and reporting x₁ instead of x₃ gives 1.817120593, which rounds to 1.817. A sign error inside the cube root, using xₙ₊₁ = ∛(10 + xₙ²) instead of ∛(10 − xₙ²), gives x₁ = ∛14 = 2.410142264, x₂ = ∛(10 + 2.410142264²) = 2.509763724, and x₃ = ∛(10 + 2.509763724²) = 2.535437381, which rounds to 2.535.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.