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) The cost increases by about £10 per extra item — Gradient = change in cost ÷ change in items = (800 − 400) ÷ (70 − 30) = 400 ÷ 40 = 10. The units of the gradient are £ per item, so the cost is increasing by about £10 for every extra item produced, near x = 50. Subtracting in the wrong order, (400 − 800) ÷ (70 − 30) = −10, gives the right size but the wrong sign — check which point comes first each time. Leaving out the division by 40 gives £400 per item; dividing the wrong way round, 40 ÷ 400 = 0.1, gives £0.10 per item.
- (c) 2 — At x = 1, y = 1² − 3(1) = 1 − 3 = −2. At x = 4, y = 4² − 3(4) = 16 − 12 = 4. Gradient of the chord = change in y ÷ change in x = (4 − (−2)) ÷ (4 − 1) = 6 ÷ 3 = 2. Writing down the change in y, 6, and stopping there without dividing by the change in x gives 6. Losing the negative sign on y = −2 at x = 1 and treating it as +2 gives (4 − 2) ÷ (4 − 1) = 2 ÷ 3 = 2/3. Dividing the wrong way round, change in x ÷ change in y, gives (4 − 1) ÷ (4 − (−2)) = 3 ÷ 6 = 1/2.
- (a) 7.9 m — Method: the iteration converges on the width of the plot, so run the formula three times from the starting value and then add 4 m, because the length is 4 m greater than the width. Working: x₁ = √(30 − 4 × 3) = √18 = 4.24264…; x₂ = √(30 − 4 × 4.24264…) = √13.02943… = 3.60963…; x₃ = √(30 − 4 × 3.60963…) = √15.56147… = 3.94480…. The estimate for the length is 3.94480… + 4 = 7.94480…, which is 7.9 m correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 7.9 m. The iteration is still oscillating at x₃, so this is the estimate that three uses of the formula give, not a settled value. The distractors: 3.9 m is x₃ itself, the width, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 7.6 m uses x₂ in place of x₃, one use of the formula short, and then adds the 4 m correctly; 15.8 m multiplies the width by 4 instead of adding 4 m to it, reading greater than as a multiplier.
- (b) y decreases towards zero but never reaches it — Method: as x gets larger, dividing 20 by a bigger number gives a smaller result, so y decreases; because 20/x can never be exactly zero for any positive x, the curve gets closer to zero without ever reaching it, so y decreases towards zero but never reaches it. Distractor origins: 'y increases towards a limit but never reaches it' has the relationship backwards, treating y as increasing when it is actually decreasing; 'y decreases at a steady rate and reaches zero' wrongly assumes the graph behaves like a straight line that eventually hits zero; 'y stays the same however large x becomes' wrongly assumes there is no change in y at all.
- (b) 5.00 — Continuing the iteration: x₁ = √(2 × 1 + 15) = √17 = 4.1231, x₂ = √(2 × 4.1231 + 15) = √23.2462 = 4.8214, x₃ = √(2 × 4.8214 + 15) = √24.6428 = 4.9642, x₄ = √(2 × 4.9642 + 15) = √24.9284 = 4.9928, and the values keep climbing towards 5.00 as n increases (the limit L satisfies L² = 2L + 15, so L² − 2L − 15 = 0, giving L = 5). Choosing 4.99 stops after x₄, one iteration before the value has settled fully to 5.00. Choosing 17.00 uses the value under the very first square root (2 × 1 + 15 = 17) as if that number itself were the limit. Choosing 1.00 assumes the sequence never moves from the starting value x₀.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 6x + 6 — Perimeter = 2[(2x + 5) + (x − 2)] = 2(3x + 3) = 6x + 6. A candidate who adds the length and width but forgets to double for the perimeter gets 3x + 3. A candidate who makes a sign error and adds 2 instead of subtracting it before doubling gets 2[(2x + 5) + (x + 2)] = 6x + 14. A candidate who multiplies the length and width instead of adding them, confusing the perimeter formula with the area formula, and then doubles that product, gets 2(2x + 5)(x − 2) = 4x² + 2x − 20.
- (a) t = 0 or t = 4 — The ball is at ground level exactly when h = 0. From the table, h = 0 at t = 0 and at t = 4, so those are the two times. Distractor origins: t = 1 or t = 3 picks the times with equal (but non-zero) height instead of ground level; t = 2 picks the time of maximum height instead of ground level; t = 0 finds only the starting time and misses the second one.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 12.7 m/s — Find the total distance from the area under the graph, then divide by the total time. Break the graph into its four straight sections: a triangle from (0, 0) to (5, 20), where 5 × 20 = 100 gives an area of 50 m when halved; a rectangle from (5, 20) to (12, 20), area 7 × 20 = 140 m; a trapezium from (12, 20) to (16, 4), where (20 + 4) × 4 = 96 gives an area of 48 m when halved; and a rectangle from (16, 4) to (20, 4), area 4 × 4 = 16 m — a total distance of 50 + 140 + 48 + 16 = 254 m. Dividing by the 20 seconds gives an average speed of 254 ÷ 20 = 12.7 m/s. Writing 15.1 m/s comes from forgetting to halve the trapezium area for the third section, using 96 instead of 48: a total of 302 m, and 302 ÷ 20 = 15.1 m/s. Writing 11.9 m/s comes from leaving out the final section, from (16, 4) to (20, 4), entirely: a total of 238 m, and 238 ÷ 20 = 11.9 m/s. Writing 12.1 m/s comes from dividing the correct total distance by 21 instead of 20 — a fencepost slip, counting the whole seconds from t = 0 to t = 20 inclusive as 21 seconds of travel rather than reading the journey as a duration of 20 seconds: 254 ÷ 21 = 12.1 m/s (1 d.p.).
- (c) x = −2 or x = 4 — The solutions of x² − 2x − 8 = 0 are the x-values where y = 0. From the table, y = 0 when x = −2 and when x = 4, so those are the two solutions. Distractor origins: x = −1 or x = 3 picks the pair of x-values that give equal (but non-zero) y-values instead of y = 0; x = 0 or x = −8 mixes up an x-value with its corresponding y-value; x = −2 only reads off one of the two roots and misses the other.
- (b) Student B's — narrower strips fit the curve more closely. — The trapezium rule replaces the curve with straight-line segments; the narrower each strip, the more closely its straight edge follows the curve, so Student B's estimate with 8 narrower strips is more likely to be closer to the true area. Reasoning from the number of arithmetic steps rather than from how well the straight lines fit the curve gives the wrong claim that Student A makes fewer rounding errors. Believing the trapezium rule is exact, rather than an estimate that improves with narrower strips, gives the wrong claim that the two are always the same. Believing wider strips smooth out the curve better, rather than following it less closely, gives the wrong claim in favour of Student A's wider strips.
- (d) Overestimate — the curve bends upward (convex). — The first differences of the speeds are 3, 5, 7 and 9, so the second differences are 2, 2 and 2 — constant and positive, which means the speed-time graph curves upwards (is convex). On a convex curve, each straight chord used by the trapezium rule lies above the curve, so the trapezium rule overestimates the true distance. 'Underestimate — the curve bends upward' states the same correct geometry but gets the conclusion backwards — a chord above the curve means too much area is counted, not too little. 'Overestimate — the speed values are increasing' uses the wrong evidence: increasing speed alone doesn't tell you whether the curve bends up or down, only the second differences do. 'Underestimate — second differences are constant' confuses a constant second difference with a steady rate of change in speed, which isn't what the second difference of a speed-time table measures.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.