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) x₂ closer: f(x₂) = 0.0225, nearer to 0 — f(2.6) = 2.6² − 7 = 6.76 − 7 = −0.24, and f(2.65) = 2.65² − 7 = 7.0225 − 7 = 0.0225. The closer a value of x is to the root, the closer f(x) is to zero — regardless of sign. Since |0.0225| = 0.0225 is much smaller than |−0.24| = 0.24, x₂ = 2.65 is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: −0.24 is the smaller value' comes from comparing the SIGNED values of f(x) rather than their distances from zero — −0.24 is indeed less than 0.0225 as a number, but that does not mean x₁ is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: f(x₁) negative ⇒ nearer root' invents a rule that a negative f(x) means x is closer to the root; the sign of f(x) only tells you which side of the root x is on, not how close it is. 'x₂ is the exact root, since f(x₂) ≈ 0' misreads f(x₂) = 0.0225 as zero; the true root is √7 ≈ 2.6458, so f(2.65) is close to zero but not equal to it, and x₂ is an approximation, not the exact root.
- (a) 1.861 — x₁ = ∛(10 − 2²) = ∛6 = 1.817120593. x₂ = ∛(10 − 1.817120593²) = ∛6.698072751 = 1.885022855. x₃ = ∛(10 − 1.885022855²) = ∛6.446688837 = 1.861139399, which rounds to 1.861. Reporting x₂ instead of x₃ gives 1.885022855, which rounds to 1.885. Stopping after the first iteration and reporting x₁ instead of x₃ gives 1.817120593, which rounds to 1.817. A sign error inside the cube root, using xₙ₊₁ = ∛(10 + xₙ²) instead of ∛(10 − xₙ²), gives x₁ = ∛14 = 2.410142264, x₂ = ∛(10 + 2.410142264²) = 2.509763724, and x₃ = ∛(10 + 2.509763724²) = 2.535437381, which rounds to 2.535.
- (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.
- (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) 3 and 4 — Method: the graph of f(x) is continuous, so where it crosses the x-axis the value of f(x) changes sign; substitute consecutive integers until one value is negative and the next is positive. Working: f(2) = 8 − 6 − 20 = −18, f(3) = 27 − 9 − 20 = −2 and f(4) = 64 − 12 − 20 = 32. The sign changes from negative to positive between x = 3 and x = 4, so the solution lies there. Answer: 3 and 4. The distractors: 2 and 3 comes from ignoring the −3x term and solving x³ = 20, whose root is 2.71, one interval to the left; 6 and 7 comes from reading x³ as x² and solving x² − 3x − 20 = 0, whose positive root is 6.22; 4 and 5 is the interval immediately after the change of sign, named by a candidate who finds f(4) positive and quotes the interval beginning there instead of the one across which the sign actually turned.
- (a) 6x + 12 — A regular hexagon has 6 equal sides, so the perimeter is 6(x + 2) = 6x + 12. A candidate who multiplies only the x-term by 6 and forgets to multiply the 2 gets 6x + 2. A candidate who multiplies only the number term by 6 and forgets to multiply the x gets x + 12. A candidate who adds 6 and 2 to make a single coefficient of x instead of expanding the brackets gets 8x.
- (d) x = −2, y = −5 — 3x² + 12x + 7 rewrites as 3(x² + 4x) + 7, then as 3[(x + 2)² − 4] + 7, which simplifies to 3(x + 2)² − 5, since −3 × 4 + 7 = −5. Substituting x = −2: 3 × (−2)² = 12, 12 × (−2) = −24, so 12 − 24 + 7 = −5, confirming the minimum value −5 at x = −2: turning point x = −2, y = −5. Halving b instead of halving b/a — using −4 as the shift instead of −2 — lands on turning point x = −4, y = −41, which is wrong because when a ≠ 1 the shift inside the bracket is b/(2a), not b/a alone. Reading the bracket's sign directly as the turning point's x-coordinate gives x = 2, y = −5 — wrong, because (x + 2)² is zero at x = −2, not x = 2. Computing 12 − 7 = 5 instead of 7 − 12 = −5 flips the sign of the constant, giving x = −2, y = 5 — wrong, since the completed square's constant must be evaluated as 7 minus 12, not 12 minus 7. Whenever a ≠ 1, factor a out of the x² and x terms first, and always check a turning point by substituting back into the original equation.
- (a) 4 — Rectangle 1: P = 2(9 + 4) = 2 × 13 = 26 cm. Rectangle 2: P = 2(6 + 5) = 2 × 11 = 22 cm. Difference = 26 − 22 = 4 cm. 2 comes from finding the difference between (l + w) for each rectangle, 13 − 11 = 2, but forgetting to double it. 26 comes from giving rectangle 1's whole perimeter instead of the difference between the two. 6 comes from doubling only the change in length, 2 × (9 − 6), and ignoring that the width also changed.
- (b) 3 — Method: a term is any part of an expression separated from the rest by a + or − sign, including a number on its own. Working: 8 − 3x + 5x² splits at the + and − signs into 8, −3x and 5x² — that is three separate terms. Answer: 3. Ryan's answer of 2 comes from wrongly excluding the number 8, thinking a term must contain a letter. 5 comes from miscounting by treating the coefficients and powers as separate terms as well as the letters. 1 comes from treating the whole expression as a single term because it is written without brackets.
- (a) Underestimate: the chord lies below the curve — For a curve that is concave down (bending downward), the straight line joining any two points on the curve lies BELOW the curve. The trapezium's top edge is this straight line, so the trapezium's area is smaller than the true area under the curve — the trapezium rule UNDERESTIMATES the distance in this case. This is because a curve whose gradient keeps decreasing bends away from any chord joining two of its points, dropping the chord below every point of the curve in between. The reverse, a chord lying above the curve, is the rule for a concave-up curve, not this one — check which way the curve bends before deciding. The trapezium rule does not always overestimate or underestimate, and it is not exact except when the graph really is a straight line.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 8 — Working backwards by halving (undoing the doubling), one 4-hour step at a time: 9,600 (20 h) → 4,800 (16 h) → 2,400 (12 h) → 1,200 (8 h) → 600 (4 h) → 300 (0 h). Reading these in time order — 300, 600, 1,200, 2,400, 4,800, 9,600 at 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 hours — the population is still at or below 1,000 at 4 hours (600) and first goes above 1,000 at 8 hours (1,200). So the recorded population first exceeds 1,000 at 8 hours. Answering 20 just reads off the time stated in the question, without working out when the threshold was actually first crossed — wrong, because 9,600 is only the value AT 20 hours, not necessarily the first time the population passed 1,000. Answering 0 comes from recovering the starting population by dividing 9,600 by 5 (the number of 4-hour gaps up to 20 hours) instead of by 2⁵ = 32 (the correct number of halvings), giving a wrongly-inflated starting value of 9,600 ÷ 5 = 1,920 — already above 1,000 at 0 hours — wrong, because doubling means the value must be halved five times, dividing by 2 five times (2⁵ = 32), not divided once by the number of gaps. Answering 12 comes from halving back only twice, from 9,600 to 4,800 (16 h) to 2,400 (12 h), and stopping there because 2,400 is already above 1,000, without checking that 1,200 at 8 hours is also above 1,000 and occurs earlier — wrong, because the FIRST recorded time above 1,000 is the earliest such time, not the first one reached while working backwards from 20 hours.
- (c) 4.30 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, then feed each value back in, keeping the whole display and respecting the order of operations, which divides before it subtracts. Working: x₁ = 5 − 3 ÷ 2.5 = 5 − 1.2 = 3.8; x₂ = 5 − 3 ÷ 3.8 = 5 − 0.78947… = 4.21052…; x₃ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.21052… = 5 − 0.7125 = 4.2875; x₄ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.2875 = 5 − 0.69970… = 4.30029…, which is 4.30 correct to 3 significant figures. Answer: 4.30. The distractors: 4.29 is x₃ = 4.2875 rounded, reached by counting the starting value itself as the first iterate and so stopping one use of the formula early; 3.80 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula; 2.50 comes from working out (5 − 3) ÷ xₙ instead of 5 − (3 ÷ xₙ), subtracting before dividing, which produces the sequence 0.8, 2.5, 0.8, 2.5 and lands on 2.5 at the fourth step.
- (b) £47, and T=15+8h is a formula (relates T and h). — The charge is £15 fixed plus £8 for each hour: T=15+8h, so for h=4, T=15+8×4=15+32=47. Because T=15+8h relates two different quantities, the total charge T and the number of hours h, it is a formula, not an equation — an equation is solved for one particular value of an unknown, but this relationship holds for every value of h a job might last. A candidate who forgets to include the fixed £15 fee would compute only 8×4=32. A candidate who adds the three numbers in the formula together instead of multiplying the hourly rate by the number of hours would compute 15+8+4=27. A candidate who correctly finds the charge but mistakes the formula for an equation, treating it as something to be solved for one specific value of h rather than a general relationship between T and h, would pick the correct charge with the wrong classification.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.