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) 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.
- (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.
- (d) x = −2, y = −5 — 3x² + 12x + 7 rewrites as 3(x² + 4x) + 7, then as 3[(x + 2)² − 4] + 7, which simplifies to 3(x + 2)² − 5, since −3 × 4 + 7 = −5. Substituting x = −2: 3 × (−2)² = 12, 12 × (−2) = −24, so 12 − 24 + 7 = −5, confirming the minimum value −5 at x = −2: turning point x = −2, y = −5. Halving b instead of halving b/a — using −4 as the shift instead of −2 — lands on turning point x = −4, y = −41, which is wrong because when a ≠ 1 the shift inside the bracket is b/(2a), not b/a alone. Reading the bracket's sign directly as the turning point's x-coordinate gives x = 2, y = −5 — wrong, because (x + 2)² is zero at x = −2, not x = 2. Computing 12 − 7 = 5 instead of 7 − 12 = −5 flips the sign of the constant, giving x = −2, y = 5 — wrong, since the completed square's constant must be evaluated as 7 minus 12, not 12 minus 7. Whenever a ≠ 1, factor a out of the x² and x terms first, and always check a turning point by substituting back into the original equation.
- (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.
- (c) 22 — p² means p × p. Substitute p = 2.5: p² = 6.25, so 4p² = 4 × 6.25 = 25, and 25 − 3 = 22. 97 comes from squaring 4p together instead of just p, (4 × 2.5)² − 3 = 10² − 3 = 97. 7 comes from using p instead of p², 4 × 2.5 − 3. 1 comes from squaring the 3 instead of the p, 4 × 2.5 − 3².
- (b) The total volume of water, in litres, that has flowed in. — On a rate-time graph, the y-axis is in litres per minute and the x-axis is in minutes; multiplying a rate by a time gives litres per minute × minutes = litres, a total volume. So the area under the graph represents the total volume of water that has flowed in. Thinking the area itself represents the rate, rather than what the rate accumulates to, gives the wrong claim about the average rate of flow. Confusing the area with the gradient of the graph — which measures how the rate is changing — gives the wrong claim about litres per minute squared. Ignoring the flow-rate axis and focusing only on the time axis gives the wrong claim that the area is simply the total time.
- (b) 3.38 — r₁ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8)) = √11.9366 = 3.4550. r₂ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.4550)) = √11.2947 = 3.3608. r₃ = √(300 ÷ (π × 8.3608)) = √11.4232 = 3.3798, which rounds to 3.38. Choosing 3.36 stops at r₂, one iteration too early. Choosing 4.82 leaves out the '+ 5' inside the bracket, dividing by π × rₙ instead of π × (rₙ + 5). Choosing 3.45 comes from using π ≈ 3 instead of the calculator's π key throughout.
- (c) 16 km/h — Method: total distance = 12 + 8 = 20 km. Total time = 30 + 30 + 15 = 75 minutes = 1.25 hours. Average speed = total distance ÷ total time = 20 ÷ 1.25 = 16 km/h. Distractor origins: 20 km/h gives the total distance without ever dividing by the total time; 24 km/h uses only the speed of the first stage (12 km in 30 minutes), ignoring the second stage and the rest; 28 km/h averages the two separate stage speeds, 24 km/h and 32 km/h, instead of using total distance over total time.
- (d) t = 5 — The maximum height occurs halfway between the two times when the ball is at ground level: the midpoint of t = 1 and t = 9 is (1 + 9) ÷ 2 = 5, so the ball reaches its maximum height at t = 5 seconds. Getting t = 4 comes from halving the DIFFERENCE between the times, 9 − 1 = 8, then 8 ÷ 2 = 4, instead of finding their midpoint. Getting t = 8 uses that difference, 9 − 1 = 8, as if the gap between the two times were itself the time of the maximum. Getting t = 10 adds the two times, 1 + 9 = 10, but forgets to divide by 2.
- (a) 6x + 12 — A regular hexagon has 6 equal sides, so the perimeter is 6(x + 2) = 6x + 12. A candidate who multiplies only the x-term by 6 and forgets to multiply the 2 gets 6x + 2. A candidate who multiplies only the number term by 6 and forgets to multiply the x gets x + 12. A candidate who adds 6 and 2 to make a single coefficient of x instead of expanding the brackets gets 8x.
- (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)).
- (b) x ≥ 5 — Expand the bracket: 2(3x − 1) = 6x − 2, so the inequality is 6x − 2 ≥ 4x + 8. Subtract 4x from both sides and add 2 to both sides: 2x ≥ 10. Divide both sides by 2: x ≥ 5. A candidate who only multiplies the 3x by 2 and forgets to multiply the −1 gets 6x − 1 ≥ 4x + 8, leading to x ≥ 4.5. A candidate who adds 4x instead of subtracting it gets 10x ≥ 10, leading to x ≥ 1. A candidate who multiplies by 2 instead of dividing gets x ≥ 20.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.