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) 1.50 — Substituting (0, 8) gives A = 8, since r⁰ = 1. Substituting (2, 18) gives 8 × r² = 18, so r² = 18 ÷ 8 = 2.25. Taking the square root of 2.25 gives r = 1.50 (2 d.p.). Stopping after finding r² and giving 2.25 as the final answer, without taking the square root, is wrong because r² is not the same as r. Dividing r² by the exponent 2 instead of taking its square root — treating the power as something you divide by rather than root — gives 2.25 ÷ 2 = 1.13 (2 d.p.), which is wrong. Inverting the ratio, working out 8 ÷ 18 instead of 18 ÷ 8, gives 0.44 (2 d.p.), which is wrong because the LATER value must be divided by the EARLIER one to find the growth multiplier, not the other way round.
- (d) £20 — Let f be the joining fee and m the monthly fee: f + 3m = 100 and f + 6m = 160. Subtracting the first equation from the second eliminates f: 3m = 60, so m = 20. A candidate who finds the joining fee instead of the monthly fee would get f = 100 − 3(20) = £40. A candidate who divides Ben's total by his number of months, ignoring that part of the cost is a fixed joining fee, would get 160 ÷ 6 ≈ £26.67. A candidate who divides the difference in cost by the total number of months instead of the difference in months would get (160 − 100) ÷ 9 ≈ £6.67.
- (a) 48 litres — Split the area into three sections. The rectangle (t = 0 to 2) has area 2 × 12 = 24. The first trapezium (t = 2 to 5, parallel sides 12 and 3, width 3) has area 1/2 × (12 + 3) × 3 = 22.5. The second trapezium (t = 5 to 6, parallel sides 3 and 0, width 1) has area 1/2 × (3 + 0) × 1 = 1.5. Total volume: 24 + 22.5 + 1.5 = 48 litres. Forgetting the rectangle and adding only the two trapeziums gives 22.5 + 1.5 = 24 litres. Using a single trapezium across the whole 6 minutes, with parallel sides 12 and 0, ignoring that the first 2 minutes are constant, gives 1/2 × (12 + 0) × 6 = 36 litres. Correctly finding the rectangle and the first trapezium but forgetting to halve the second trapezium, using (3 + 0) × 1 = 3 instead of 1.5, gives 24 + 22.5 + 3 = 49.5 litres.
- (b) 58.8 km/h — Total distance = 100 + 47 = 147 km. Total time = 1.5 + 0.25 + 0.75 = 2.5 hours. Average speed = 147 ÷ 2.5 = 58.8 km/h. Leaving out the 0.25 hours of waiting from the total time gives 147 ÷ 2.25 = 65.3 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because the train is stationary but time is still passing on the whole journey. Using only the first leg gives 100 ÷ 1.5 = 66.7 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because it ignores the second leg of the journey entirely. Working out each leg's own speed (100 ÷ 1.5 = 66.7 km/h and 47 ÷ 0.75 = 62.7 km/h) and then averaging those two speeds gives 64.7 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because the average of two speeds over DIFFERENT times is not the same as total distance divided by total time.
- (a) 271 m — The reading at t = 12 isn't in the table, so it must be interpolated between t = 10 (35 m/s) and t = 14 (27 m/s): the velocity falls by 8 m/s over the 4-second gap, so over 2 seconds it falls by 4 m/s, giving 35 − 4 = 31 m/s. The trapezium rule then uses three strips of unequal width, 4, 6 and 2 seconds, with areas of 40, 165 and 66: 40 + 165 + 66 = 271 m. Writing 267 m comes from skipping the interpolation and using the table's t = 14 reading, 27, directly as the height at t = 12. Writing 282 m comes from treating all three strips as though they were 4 seconds wide, instead of using the true gaps of 4, 6 and 2 seconds between the readings. Writing 275 m comes from using the t = 10 reading, 35, at both ends of the final strip, instead of interpolating a new value at t = 12.
- (b) (2, 4) and (−2, −4) — Substitute y = 2x into x² + y² = 20: x² + (2x)² = 20, which gives x² + 4x² = 20, so 5x² = 20, x² = 4, and x = 2 or x = −2. Using y = 2x for each x-value: x = 2 gives y = 4; x = −2 gives y = −4. The path meets the pond's edge at (2, 4) and (−2, −4). Distractor routes: (2, −4) and (−2, 4) swaps the sign pairing, matching each x-value with the wrong sign of y instead of keeping each x with its own correctly-signed y. (2, 1) and (−2, −1) comes from using y = x/2 instead of y = 2x when finding the y-coordinates. (2, 4) alone stops after the positive square root of x² = 4 and never finds the second point from x = −2.
- (d) 8 — Since the mean of the four numbers is 12.5, their total is 4 × 12.5 = 50. The three known numbers add up to 8 + 15 + 19 = 42, so n = 50 − 42 = 8. A candidate who multiplies the mean by 3 instead of 4 gets a total of 37.5, giving n = 37.5 − 42 = −4.5. A candidate who forgets to subtract the three known numbers and gives the total itself as n states n = 50. A candidate who subtracts the mean from the total of the three known numbers instead of the other way round gets n = 42 − 12.5 = 29.5.
- (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.
- (d) x + y = 7 — The midpoint of AB is (−1 + 5)/2, (2 + 8)/2, which is (2, 5). The gradient of AB is (8 − 2)/(5 − (−1)) = 6/6 = 1. The perpendicular bisector has gradient −1 and passes through (2, 5): y − 5 = −(x − 2), which rearranges to x + y = 7. Distractor routes: x − y = −3 uses the gradient of AB itself, 1, rather than its negative reciprocal, giving a line PARALLEL to AB through the midpoint instead of perpendicular to it. x + y = 12 comes from adding the y-coordinates, 2 + 8 = 10, but forgetting to divide by 2, using the midpoint (2, 10) instead of (2, 5). x + y = 4 comes from using A's x-coordinate, −1, directly instead of averaging it with B's, giving the point (−1, 5) instead of the true midpoint (2, 5).
- (d) 3 and 4 — f(3) = 3³ − 3 × 3² − 4 = 27 − 27 − 4 = −4, and f(4) = 4³ − 3 × 4² − 4 = 64 − 48 − 4 = 12. Since f(3) is negative and f(4) is positive, there is a change of sign, so the solution lies between 3 and 4. A sign slip when expanding −3x², treating it as +3x², gives f(3) = 27 + 27 − 4 = 50, a positive value; taken with the correctly negative f(2) = 8 − 12 − 4 = −8, this reads as a change of sign between 2 and 3. The same sign slip applied at x = 1 gives f(1) = 1 + 3 − 4 = 0, read as the point the sign changes, against f(0) = 0 + 0 − 4 = −4, giving 0 and 1. Shifting the correctly found interval up by one integer, an indexing slip, reports the change as lying between 4 and 5 instead of 3 and 4.
- (b) 10 km — Method: find the constant speed from the graph (distance ÷ time for any point on the line), then multiply that speed by 20 minutes. Working: the line passes through (4 minutes, 2 km), so the speed is 2 ÷ 4 = 0.5 km per minute; in 20 minutes the cyclist travels 0.5 × 20 = 10 km. Answer: 10 km. Distractor refutation: 3 km comes from reading off the distance shown at the end of the plotted section (6 minutes) and stopping there, instead of extending the line to 20 minutes. 20 km comes from misreading the speed as 1 km per minute instead of 0.5 km per minute, doubling the true rate. 40 km comes from dividing 20 by the speed instead of multiplying by it, a reciprocal mix-up.
- (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.
- (b) 235 litres — The flow rate at t = 10 is the gradient of the tangent: change in volume ÷ change in time = (190 − 130) ÷ (12 − 8) = 60 ÷ 4 = 15 litres per minute. Treating this rate as roughly constant for a short interval, the volume 5 minutes after t = 10 is estimated as 160 + 5 × 15 = 235 litres. Using the tangent's own point spacing — 2 minutes, from t = 10 to t = 12 — instead of the 5 minutes actually asked for gives 160 + 2 × 15 = 190, which is just the volume already given at one of the tangent's own points, not an answer to the question asked. Multiplying the gradient by the time WITHOUT adding the starting volume, 5 × 15 = 75, forgets that a rate estimates a CHANGE, which must be added to the starting volume, not given as the answer on its own. Subtracting instead of adding, 160 − 5 × 15 = 85, extrapolates backward in time rather than forward.
- (a) They always charge the same, since 3(2n + 4) = 6n + 12. — Expand Advert A's formula by multiplying both terms inside the bracket by 3: 3 × 2n = 6n, and 3 × 4 = 12, giving 3(2n + 4) = 6n + 12, which is identical to Advert B's formula — so the two adverts always charge the same amount, whatever n is. Getting 6n + 4 comes from multiplying the 2n by 3 but leaving the 4 unmultiplied. Getting 2n + 7 comes from adding 3 to the bracket instead of multiplying by it. Saying it depends on n avoids expanding the bracket at all — once expanded, both formulas are identical for every value of n, so the cost can be compared directly.
- (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.