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) 2 — The gradient between two points on a line is the change in y divided by the change in x. Using (5, 2) and (0, −8): (2 − (−8)) ÷ (5 − 0) = 10 ÷ 5 = 2. Inverting the fraction, dividing the change in x by the change in y instead, gives 5 ÷ 10 = 0.5. Reversing the order of the x-values in the denominator, giving (2 − (−8)) ÷ (0 − 5) = 10 ÷ (−5), gives −2. Misreading the y-intercept as 8 instead of −8, giving (2 − 8) ÷ 5 = −6 ÷ 5, gives −1.2.
- (a) Overestimates — trapezium edges lie above the curve. — For a concave-up curve, each chord connecting two points on the curve lies ABOVE the curve between those points, because the curve bends away from the chord underneath it. The trapezium rule uses these chords as the top edges of each trapezium, so the trapeziums cover a larger region than the true area under the curve — the estimate is an overestimate. Saying it underestimates because the edges lie below the curve gets the direction backwards: for a concave-up curve the edges lie above, not below. Saying it overestimates 'because more strips always increase it' gives the right verdict for the wrong reason — using MORE, narrower strips makes a trapezium estimate more accurate and brings it closer to the true area, it does not simply increase the total. Saying the estimate is exact ignores that straight edges cannot follow a curved line perfectly; there is always a gap between the chord and the curve on a bend, which is exactly what makes the rule an estimate rather than an exact calculation.
- (c) Week 16, £37,000 — y = f(x − 6) − 8000 combines a horizontal translation of 6 units RIGHT (subtracting 6 inside the brackets) with a vertical translation of £8000 DOWN (subtracting 8000 outside). Applying both to the maximum (10, 45000): 10 + 6 = 16, so the new maximum is in week 16. And 45000 − 8000 = 37000, so the maximum weekly profit is £37,000.
- (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.
- (b) £2.00 — Subtracting the second equation from the first eliminates the pastries: (3c + 2p) − (2c + 2p) = 9.60 − 7.60, so c = 2.00. A candidate who divides the first total by the number of coffees alone, ignoring the pastries, would get 9.60 ÷ 3 = £3.20. A candidate who finds the price of a pastry instead of a coffee — using c = 2.00 in 2c + 2p = 7.60 to get p = 1.80 — would answer £1.80. A candidate who reaches the correct difference of £2.00 but then mistakenly divides again or misplaces the decimal point would get £0.20.
- (c) 2.26 — Method: apply the formula repeatedly, keeping the whole display each time, and stop when two values in a row round to the same 2 decimal places; that shared rounded value is the solution to that accuracy. Working: x₁ = ∛(2 × 2 + 7) = ∛11 = 2.22398…; x₂ = ∛(2 × 2.22398… + 7) = ∛11.44796… = 2.25377…; x₃ = ∛11.50754… = 2.25767…; x₄ = ∛11.51534… = 2.25818…. Now x₃ and x₄ both round to 2.26, so the sequence has settled. Answer: 2.26. The distractors: 2.22 is x₁ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops after one use of the formula; 2.25 is x₂ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops as soon as two values look close instead of waiting until two consecutive values round to the same figure; 1.91 is ∛7, which comes from ignoring the 2x term and solving x³ = 7 instead.
- (a) Tuesday, by 2 km/h — Monday's speed is 15 ÷ 2.5 = 6 km/h and Tuesday's speed is 12 ÷ 1.5 = 8 km/h, so Tuesday was faster, by 8 − 6 = 2 km/h. A candidate who works out the correct speeds but mislabels which day is faster gets Monday, by 2 km/h. A candidate who divides 15 ÷ 2.5 incorrectly as 5 instead of 6 gets a difference of 8 − 5 = 3 km/h, still crediting Tuesday. A candidate who forgets to find Monday's speed and gives Tuesday's speed itself as the difference states Tuesday, by 8 km/h.
- (d) It diverges, growing rapidly without limit. — x₁ = 2³ − 2 = 8 − 2 = 6. x₂ = 6³ − 2 = 216 − 2 = 214. x₃ = 214³ − 2 = 9800344 − 2 = 9800342. The values 6, 214, 9800342, … grow far larger at every step, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Checking whether the sequence converges to a fixed value near 2 fails, since the terms grow enormously instead of levelling off. Checking for a repeating pair of values also fails, since 6, 214 and 9800342 are all different, with no sign of a return to 6. x₀ = 2 is a fixed point only if 2³ − 2 = 2, but 2³ − 2 = 6, not 2, so the sequence does not stay constant.
- (a) 2.154 — Continuing xₙ₊₁ = ∛(3xₙ + 4) from x₁ = 2.154 gives x₂ = 2.187, x₃ = 2.195, settling towards the root near 2.196 — this is the formula that converges. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = (xₙ³ − 4) ÷ 3 from x₁ = 1.333 gives x₂ = −0.543 and then x₃ = −1.387, moving further from the root each time. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = 4 ÷ (xₙ² − 3) from x₁ = 4 gives x₂ = 0.308 and then x₃ = −1.377, swinging wildly rather than settling. Continuing xₙ₊₁ = xₙ³ − 2xₙ − 4 from x₁ = 0 gives x₂ = −4 and then x₃ = −60, running away from the root entirely.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) It has a solution between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3 — Since f(2.2) is negative and f(2.3) is positive, the graph of f crosses the x-axis somewhere between x = 2.2 and x = 2.3, so the equation has a solution in that interval. Choosing 'between x = −2.2 and x = −2.3' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.2 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no solution' misreads a change of sign as meaning the opposite of what it shows. Choosing 'exactly two solutions' assumes a single change of sign must give two roots, which is not what the rule guarantees.
- (a) 12 — Method: write both ages as they were six years ago, call Leo's present age x, and form an equation from the comparison at that time. Working: six years ago Harry was 24 − 6 = 18 and Leo was x − 6, so 18 = 3(x − 6); expanding gives 18 = 3x − 18, adding 18 to both sides gives 36 = 3x, and dividing by 3 gives x = 12. Checking: six years ago Harry was 18 and Leo was 6, and 18 = 3 × 6. Answer: 12. The distractors: 6 comes from solving 18 = 3(x − 6) as far as Leo's age six years ago, 18 ÷ 3 = 6, and giving that as his age now; 8 comes from dividing Harry's present age by 3, 24 ÷ 3 = 8, using the multiple at the wrong moment in time; 36 comes from stopping at 3x = 36 and giving 36 as Leo's age.
- (a) 36 km/h — Speed is distance ÷ time. Convert 25 minutes to hours: 25 ÷ 60 = 5/12 hours. Then 15 ÷ (5/12) = 15 × 12/5 = 36 km/h. Dividing 15 by 25 without converting minutes to hours gives 0.6 km/h. Multiplying 15 by 25/60 instead of dividing by it gives 6.25 km/h. Working out the speed in km per minute, 0.6, and then multiplying by 24 instead of 60 gives 14.4 km/h.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.