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) 5.00 — 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.
- (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.
- (a) £50 — Substituting x = 200 into y = 0.15x + 20 gives y = 0.15 × 200 + 20 = 30 + 20 = £50. A candidate who forgets to add the standing charge would get only 0.15 × 200 = £30. A candidate who misplaces the decimal point in the rate, using 1.5 instead of 0.15, would get 1.5 × 200 + 20 = £320. A candidate who swaps the roles of the rate and the number of units would work out 0.15 × 20 + 200 = £203.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 2.7 — The height after 3 years of 10% compound growth is 2 × 1.1³ = 2.662 m, which rounds to 2.7 m. A candidate who adds 10% of the original height (0.2 m) in each of the 3 years, instead of compounding on the new height each time, would reach 2 + 3×0.2 = 2.6 m. A candidate who compounds for only 2 years would reach 2 × 1.1² = 2.42 m, rounding to 2.4 m. A candidate who compounds for 4 years instead of 3 would reach 2 × 1.1⁴ = 2.928 m, rounding to 2.9 m.
- (c) 496 — d = 0.4v² + 6. First v² = 35 × 35 = 1225. Then 0.4 × 1225 = 490. Add 6: 490 + 6 = 496 m. 490 comes from forgetting to add the 6 at the end. 202 comes from squaring 0.4v together instead of squaring only v, (0.4 × 35)² + 6 = 14² + 6 = 202. 20 comes from using v instead of v², 0.4 × 35 + 6.
- (c) 64 m — The distance travelled is the area under the speed-time graph. From t = 0 to t = 4, the shape is a triangle with base 4 and height 8, area 1/2 × 4 × 8 = 16. From t = 4 to t = 10, the shape is a rectangle with base 6 and height 8, area 6 × 8 = 48. Total distance: 16 + 48 = 64 m. Treating the whole 10 seconds as a single trapezium with parallel sides 0 and 8 and width 10, instead of splitting it into the triangle and rectangle, gives 40 m. Ignoring the acceleration phase completely and assuming the car travels at a constant 8 m/s for all 10 seconds gives 8 × 10 = 80 m. Misreading the second interval as running from t = 4 to t = 8 instead of t = 4 to t = 10 gives a rectangle area of 4 × 8 = 32, plus the correct triangle of 16, totalling 48 m.
- (c) £2.80 — 3n + 1.50 = 9.90, so 3n = 8.40 and n = 2.80, so each notebook costs £2.80. A candidate who forgets to subtract the cost of the pen and divides the total by 3 gets n = 9.90 ÷ 3 = £3.30. A candidate who adds the cost of the pen instead of subtracting it gets 3n = 11.40 and n = £3.80. A candidate who treats the pen as a fourth notebook and divides the total by 4 gets n = 9.90 ÷ 4 = £2.48 (2 d.p.).
- (c) 2.61 — The limit L satisfies L = 12 ÷ (L + 2), so L(L + 2) = 12, giving L² + 2L − 12 = 0 and L = (−2 + √52) ÷ 2 = 2.6056, which is 2.61 to 2 decimal places (the early iterates 4, 2, 3, 2.4, 2.73, ... oscillate around this value before settling). Choosing 3.00 reads off x₃, one of the early oscillating values, before the sequence has settled close to the limit. Choosing 4.00 reads off x₁, the very first iterate, not the value the sequence approaches. Choosing 6.00 comes from writing the limit equation as L = 12 ÷ 2, leaving L itself out of the denominator.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 6,400 — 9 hours contains 9 ÷ 3 = 3 whole periods of doubling, so the population is 800 × 2³. Since 2³ = 8, the population after 9 hours is 800 × 8 = 6,400. Adding 100% growth three times instead of compounding it — treating the growth as simple, not repeated doubling — gives 800 × 4 = 3,200, which is wrong because each period doubles the CURRENT population, not the original one. Using 9 as the power instead of dividing by the 3-hour period first gives 800 × 2⁹ = 409,600, which is wrong because the exponent counts periods, not hours. Giving the growth factor 2³ = 8 on its own, without multiplying by the starting population 800, leaves the answer as 8, which is wrong because the question asks for the population, not the multiplier. Always check that your final number of periods matches the total time divided by the period length.
- (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.
- (c) P — Sequence P has a common ratio of 2 (4 × 2 = 8, 8 × 2 = 16, 16 × 2 = 32), so it is geometric. Sequence Q has a common difference of 4, which is arithmetic, not geometric — a candidate who confuses a constant difference with a constant ratio picks Q. Sequence R has increasing differences of 3, 5, 7, a quadratic sequence, not geometric — a candidate who assumes any fast-growing sequence must be geometric picks R. Sequence S is the square numbers from 2² onwards (2², 3², 4², 5²), which is also quadratic, not geometric — a candidate who thinks squaring always means geometric growth picks S.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.