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) 5 — Method: let a be the number of adult tickets, so the number of child tickets is 9 − a. Form the equation 10a + 6(9 − a) = 74. Working: expand the bracket: 10a + 54 − 6a = 74, so 4a = 20, giving a = 5. Answer: 5 adult tickets. 4 comes from correctly finding the number of child tickets but reporting it instead of the number of adult tickets asked for. 1.25 comes from a sign error expanding the bracket, writing 10a + 54 + 6a = 74 instead of subtracting, which gives 16a = 20. 7.4 comes from dividing the total takings by the adult ticket price only, ignoring the children entirely, 74 ÷ 10.
- (c) 10 m/s — A symmetric chord gradient uses the two points either side of t = 3: (2, 40) and (4, 60). The gradient is the change in height divided by the change in time: (60 − 40) ÷ (4 − 2) = 20 ÷ 2 = 10 m/s. Using only the values either side of one gap, (2, 40) and (3, 54), instead of the full symmetric chord, gives (54 − 40) ÷ (3 − 2) = 14 m/s. Getting the correct number but dropping the time unit, leaving only metres, gives 10 m. Dividing time by height instead of height by time inverts the calculation to (4 − 2) ÷ (60 − 40) = 0.1 s/m.
- (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) £195 — Substituting x = 3 into y = 45x + 60 gives y = 45 × 3 + 60 = 135 + 60 = 195. A candidate who forgets to add the call-out fee would get only 45 × 3 = £135. A candidate who adds the hours to the fee and the rate instead of multiplying would get 45 + 60 + 3 = £108. A candidate who multiplies both the hourly rate and the call-out fee by the number of hours would get 45 × 3 + 60 × 3 = £315.
- (d) It diverges, growing rapidly without limit. — x₁ = 2³ − 2 = 8 − 2 = 6. x₂ = 6³ − 2 = 216 − 2 = 214. x₃ = 214³ − 2 = 9800344 − 2 = 9800342. The values 6, 214, 9800342, … grow far larger at every step, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Checking whether the sequence converges to a fixed value near 2 fails, since the terms grow enormously instead of levelling off. Checking for a repeating pair of values also fails, since 6, 214 and 9800342 are all different, with no sign of a return to 6. x₀ = 2 is a fixed point only if 2³ − 2 = 2, but 2³ − 2 = 6, not 2, so the sequence does not stay constant.
- (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.
- (d) An equation, true for one value of x — 2x + 5 = 17 is only true when x = 6, so it is an equation. A candidate who ignores the equals sign and focuses only on the x terms and numbers present picks the expression option. A candidate who sees an equals sign and assumes it must relate two different quantities, as a formula does, picks that option, missing that there is only one quantity, x, involved here. A candidate who wrongly checks whether both sides look similar in structure rather than testing specific values picks the identity option, missing that the two sides are not equal for every value of x.
- (a) −2 m/s² — The gradient of a line through two points is the change in the y-value divided by the change in the x-value: (6 − 22)/(16 − 8) = −16/8 = −2 m/s². The negative sign confirms the deceleration mentioned in the question. Writing 2 m/s² comes from subtracting the velocities in the wrong order, using (22 − 6) instead of (6 − 22), which loses the sign that shows the car is slowing down. Writing −0.5 m/s² comes from inverting the fraction, dividing the change in time by the change in velocity instead of the other way round. Writing −16 m/s² comes from finding the change in velocity, −16, but forgetting to divide by the change in time, 8 seconds.
- (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) 6.0 — Subtract 1.8 from both sides: 6.3x ≤ 38.2. Divide both sides by 6.3: x ≤ 6.0634… . The question asks for the greatest value to 1 decimal place that still satisfies the inequality. Testing 6.1: 6.3 × 6.1 + 1.8 = 40.23, which is more than 40, so 6.1 fails. Testing 6.0: 6.3 × 6.0 + 1.8 = 39.6, which is no more than 40, so 6.0 works and is the greatest such value. A candidate who simply rounds 6.0634… to 1 decimal place answers 6.1, without checking that it satisfies the inequality. A candidate who adds 1.8 instead of subtracting works out 41.8 ÷ 6.3 and answers 6.6. A candidate who forgets the 1.8 altogether divides 40 by 6.3 and answers 6.3.
- (a) 4.897 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side of the formula to get x₁, then feed each new value back in, keeping the whole calculator display every time and rounding only at the very end. Working: x₁ = √(5 × 2 + 2) = √12 = 3.46410…; x₂ = √(5 × 3.46410… + 2) = √19.32050… = 4.39551…; x₃ = √(5 × 4.39551… + 2) = √23.97755… = 4.89668…, which is 4.897 correct to 3 decimal places. Answer: 4.897. The distractors: 4.396 is x₂, written down by a candidate who counts the starting value x₀ as the first iterate and so stops one use of the formula early; 3.464 is x₁, the value after using the formula only once; 5.146 is x₄, one use of the formula too many — the mirror image of the first slip, made by a candidate who labels the first value worked out as x₀ rather than as x₁ and so runs the count a step long.
- (c) 6,400 — 9 hours contains 9 ÷ 3 = 3 whole periods of doubling, so the population is 800 × 2³. Since 2³ = 8, the population after 9 hours is 800 × 8 = 6,400. Adding 100% growth three times instead of compounding it — treating the growth as simple, not repeated doubling — gives 800 × 4 = 3,200, which is wrong because each period doubles the CURRENT population, not the original one. Using 9 as the power instead of dividing by the 3-hour period first gives 800 × 2⁹ = 409,600, which is wrong because the exponent counts periods, not hours. Giving the growth factor 2³ = 8 on its own, without multiplying by the starting population 800, leaves the answer as 8, which is wrong because the question asks for the population, not the multiplier. Always check that your final number of periods matches the total time divided by the period length.
- (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.
- (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) 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.