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) 8 — The perimeter is 2(x + (x + 3)) = 4x + 6, so 4x + 6 = 38, which gives 4x = 32 and x = 8. A candidate who forgets the '+3' and treats the rectangle as a square, solving 2(2x) = 38, gets x = 9.5. A candidate who forgets to double the sum of the sides, solving 2x + 3 = 38, gets x = 17.5. A candidate who uses 3x instead of x + 3 for the length, solving 2(x + 3x) = 38, gets x = 4.75.
- (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) 5 — Method: rearrange the formula to make m the subject, then substitute F = 15.50. Working: F = 3 + 2.5m, so subtracting 3 from both sides gives F − 3 = 2.5m, then dividing by 2.5 gives m = (F − 3) / 2.5. Substituting F = 15.50: m = (15.50 − 3) / 2.5 = 12.50 / 2.5 = 5. The value 6.2 comes from dividing 15.50 by 2.5 without subtracting the fixed £3 first. The value 3.2 comes from dividing first and subtracting afterwards, in the wrong order: (15.50 / 2.5) − 3 = 3.2. The value 7.4 comes from adding £3 instead of subtracting it before dividing: (15.50 + 3) / 2.5 = 7.4.
- (b) 4.39 — x₁ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4²) = ∛(150 − 48) = ∛102 = 4.672 (unrounded). x₂ = ∛(150 − 3 × 4.672²) = ∛(150 − 65.49) = ∛84.51 = 4.39 (2 d.p.). Choosing 4.67 stops after only one iteration, giving x₁ instead of x₂. Choosing 84.51 finds the value inside the cube root for x₂ but never takes the cube root. Choosing 6.32 comes from adding 3xₙ² instead of subtracting it inside the root, which does not match the given formula.
- (d) 4.521 — x₁ = √(3 × 4 + 7) = √19 = 4.358898944. x₂ = √(3 × 4.358898944 + 7) = √20.076696833 = 4.480702716. x₃ = √(3 × 4.480702716 + 7) = √20.442108148 = 4.521294964, which rounds to 4.521. Mislabelling the starting value x₀ as x₁, so that the working stops one iteration too early, reports the true x₂ = 4.480702716, which rounds to 4.481. Working out one iteration too many reports the true x₄ = √(3 × 4.521294964 + 7) = 4.534741987, which rounds to 4.535. Applying the formula in the wrong order, calculating √(3xₙ) + 7 at every step instead of √(3xₙ + 7), gives, from x₀ = 4: √12 + 7 = 10.464101615, then √(3 × 10.464101615) + 7 = 12.602883619, then √(3 × 12.602883619) + 7 = 13.148873950, which rounds to 13.149.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 0.458 — x₁ = (0.4² + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.16 ÷ 7 = 0.4514 (unrounded, 0.451428...). x₂ = (x₁² + 3) ÷ 7 = (0.2038 + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.2038 ÷ 7 = 0.458 (3 d.p.). Choosing 0.632 divides only the 3 by 7 instead of dividing the whole sum x₁² + 3 by 7. Choosing 0.451 repeats the calculation for x₁ instead of moving on to x₂. Choosing 0.493 uses x₁ itself instead of x₁² inside the formula.
- (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.
- (c) £2.80 — 3n + 1.50 = 9.90, so 3n = 8.40 and n = 2.80, so each notebook costs £2.80. A candidate who forgets to subtract the cost of the pen and divides the total by 3 gets n = 9.90 ÷ 3 = £3.30. A candidate who adds the cost of the pen instead of subtracting it gets 3n = 11.40 and n = £3.80. A candidate who treats the pen as a fourth notebook and divides the total by 4 gets n = 9.90 ÷ 4 = £2.48 (2 d.p.).
- (a) 1.8 — E = (1/2)kx² = 0.5 × 40 × 0.3² = 0.5 × 40 × 0.09 = 1.8 joules. 3.6 comes from forgetting the (1/2) at the front, 40 × 0.09. 72 comes from squaring kx together instead of squaring only x, 0.5 × (40 × 0.3)² = 0.5 × 144 = 72. 6 comes from using x instead of x², 0.5 × 40 × 0.3.
- (a) 27 — Method: let the smaller number be n, so the larger number is n + 9. Form the equation n + (n + 9) = 45. Working: simplify: 2n + 9 = 45, so 2n = 36, giving n = 18. The larger number is 18 + 9 = 27. Answer: 27. 18 is the smaller number, found correctly, but given as the answer to the question asking for the larger number. 22.5 comes from ignoring the "9 more" part and simply halving the total, 45 ÷ 2. 36 comes from a sign error when isolating the constant, treating the equation as 2n = 45 + 9 instead of 2n = 45 − 9.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.