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) 5 cm³ — When P = 32, V = 480 ÷ 32 = 15 cm³. When P = 24, V = 480 ÷ 24 = 20 cm³. The increase in volume is 20 − 15 = 5 cm³. Giving only the second volume, 20 cm³, forgets to subtract the first volume. Giving only the first volume, 15 cm³, answers the wrong part of the question. Subtracting the two pressures instead of the two volumes, 32 − 24 = 8, mixes up which quantity the question asks for.
- (c) 50 — Method: the edge of the track is a circle centred on the origin, so it has equation x² + y² = r²; use the floodlight whose coordinates are given to find r², then substitute x = 0 to find where that circle meets the positive y-axis. Working: 30² + 40² = 900 + 1600 = 2500, so the edge of the track is x² + y² = 2500. Substituting x = 0 gives k² = 2500, so k = √2500 = 50, taking the positive root because k is positive. Answer: k = 50. The distractors: 2500 is r² used as though it were the radius, which would place the second floodlight fifty times too far from the centre; 70 adds the two coordinates, 30 + 40, instead of adding their squares; 40 takes the y-coordinate of the first floodlight to be the radius, which would only be true if that floodlight stood on the y-axis itself.
- (c) 81 m — Split the velocity-time graph into its three phases. The accelerating phase (0 to 4 s) is a triangle: 1/2 × 4 × 6 = 12. The constant phase (4 s at 6 m/s, for 10 s) is a rectangle: 10 × 6 = 60. The decelerating phase (3 s) is a triangle: 1/2 × 3 × 6 = 9. Total distance: 12 + 60 + 9 = 81 m. Forgetting the final decelerating phase entirely and adding only the first two areas gives 12 + 60 = 72 m. Treating all three phases as rectangles, forgetting to halve either triangular phase, gives 4 × 6 + 10 × 6 + 3 × 6 = 102 m. Halving only the deceleration triangle correctly but treating the acceleration phase as a rectangle too gives 4 × 6 + 60 + 9 = 93 m.
- (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) x = −4, y = −19 — x² + 8x − 3 = (x + 4)² − 4² − 3 = (x + 4)² − 19. Substituting x = −4: (−4)² = 16, 8 × (−4) = −32, so 16 − 32 − 3 = −19, confirming the minimum value −19 at x = −4: turning point (−4, −19). Using 8 instead of half of it inside the bracket gives (x + 8)² − 67, turning point (−8, −67) — wrong, because only half the coefficient of x belongs inside the bracket. Reading the bracket's sign directly as the turning point's x-coordinate gives (4, −19) — wrong, because (x + 4)² is zero at x = −4, not x = 4. Computing 16 + 3 = 19 instead of −3 − 16 = −19 flips the sign of the constant, giving (−4, 19) — wrong, since the completed square's constant must be evaluated as −3 minus 16, not 16 plus 3. Check by substitution whenever the sign of a constant feels uncertain.
- (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.
- (c) 307.1 g — The multiplier for one hour is 1 − 0.15 = 0.85. After 3 hours the mass is 500 × 0.85³. Since 0.85 × 0.85 = 0.7225 and 0.85 × 0.7225 = 0.614125, the mass is 500 × 0.614125 = 307.0625 g, which rounds to 307.1 g. Stopping after only 2 hours instead of 3 gives 500 × 0.7225 = 361.25 g, which rounds to 361.3 g — wrong, because the question asks for 3 hours, not 2. Treating the decay as simple (15% × 3 = 45% lost in total, applied once) gives 500 × 0.55 = 275.0 g, which is wrong because the decay compounds hour by hour rather than adding up. Working out the AMOUNT LOST instead of the mass remaining gives 500 − 307.0625 = 192.9375 g, which rounds to 192.9 g — wrong, because the question asks what remains, not what has decayed away. Whenever a percentage decreases repeatedly, multiply by the same factor each period rather than adding the percentages together.
- (c) 5 — Method: call the number of years ago t, take t off both ages, and form an equation from the comparison at that time. Working: t years ago the father was 40 − t and Ethan was 10 − t, so 40 − t = 7(10 − t); expanding gives 40 − t = 70 − 7t, adding 7t to both sides gives 40 + 6t = 70, subtracting 40 gives 6t = 30, and dividing by 6 gives t = 5. Checking: five years ago the father was 35 and Ethan was 5, and 35 = 7 × 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 35 comes from finding the right moment but giving the father's age at that time instead of the number of years; 30 comes from using Ethan's present age on the right-hand side, 40 − t = 7 × 10, which gives t = −30 and is then written as 30; 24 comes from reaching 6t = 30 correctly and subtracting 6 instead of dividing by 6.
- (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) 3.425 — x₁ = ∛(6 × 3 + 20) = ∛38 = 3.3620 (unrounded, 3.36198...). x₂ = ∛(6 × 3.3620 + 20) = ∛40.172 = 3.425 (3 d.p.). Choosing 3.362 stops at x₁ instead of continuing to x₂. Choosing 2.722 leaves out the '+ 20' inside the root, working out ∛(6 × 3.3620) = ∛20.172 = 2.722. Choosing 0.556 subtracts 20 instead of adding it, working out ∛(6 × 3.3620 − 20) = ∛0.172 = 0.556.
- (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.
- (b) 25 — The tangent at (9, 12) is 9x + 12y = 225. Setting y = 0 (the x-axis): 9x = 225, so x = 25. Choosing 18.75 comes from swapping the coefficients in the tangent equation (using 12x + 9y = 225) before setting y = 0. Choosing 15 is where the circle itself meets the x-axis (from x² = 225), not where the tangent does. Choosing 9 is just the x-coordinate of the original point (9, 12), not the point P.
- (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) 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.
- (a) It has a solution between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7 — f(2.6) is negative and f(2.7) is positive, so the graph of f crosses the x-axis between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7, meaning the equation has a solution there. Choosing 'x = 2.6 is a solution' reads an end of the interval as the root itself, but f(2.6) = −1.424, which is not zero — the change of sign locates a root between the two values, it does not land on either of them. Choosing 'between x = −2.6 and x = −2.7' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.6 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no root in this interval' misapplies the rule, which needs a CHANGE of sign — and a change of sign is exactly what these two values show.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.