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) 2.7 — 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.
- (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.
- (a) 5.8 — The horizontal distance is 3 and the vertical distance is 5, so using Pythagoras' theorem the distance is √(3² + 5²) = √34 = 5.8 (1 d.p.). A candidate who adds the two differences instead of using Pythagoras gets 3 + 5 = 8.0. A candidate who works out 3² + 5² = 34 but forgets to take the square root gets 34.0. A candidate who subtracts the squares instead of adding them gets √(5² − 3²) = √16 = 4.0.
- (a) 23 — The number of logs increases by 4 for each layer down, starting from 3 in the top layer, so the nth layer has 3+(n−1)×4 logs. For the 6th layer: 3+5×4=3+20=23. A candidate who adds the difference of 4 six times instead of five, treating the top layer as needing an addition too, would compute 3+6×4=27. A candidate who uses 4n instead of 4n−1, omitting the adjustment for the first layer, would compute 4×6=24. A candidate who subtracts the common difference, 4, instead of 1 when adjusting the multiplier would compute 4×6−4=20.
- (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.
- (c) 5 — Method: call the number of years ago t, take t off both ages, and form an equation from the comparison at that time. Working: t years ago the father was 40 − t and Ethan was 10 − t, so 40 − t = 7(10 − t); expanding gives 40 − t = 70 − 7t, adding 7t to both sides gives 40 + 6t = 70, subtracting 40 gives 6t = 30, and dividing by 6 gives t = 5. Checking: five years ago the father was 35 and Ethan was 5, and 35 = 7 × 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 35 comes from finding the right moment but giving the father's age at that time instead of the number of years; 30 comes from using Ethan's present age on the right-hand side, 40 − t = 7 × 10, which gives t = −30 and is then written as 30; 24 comes from reaching 6t = 30 correctly and subtracting 6 instead of dividing by 6.
- (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.
- (d) 23 — Method: let the smallest integer be n, so the three consecutive integers are n, n + 1 and n + 2. Form the equation n + (n + 1) + (n + 2) = 72. Working: simplify the left side: 3n + 3 = 72, so 3n = 69, giving n = 23. Answer: 23. 24 comes from dividing 72 by 3 directly, 72 ÷ 3 = 24, which finds the middle integer rather than realising the three numbers differ. 25 comes from correctly finding n = 23 but reading off the largest integer, n + 2, instead of the smallest as asked. 21 comes from dividing first and subtracting after, (72 ÷ 3) − 3, instead of subtracting 3 before dividing by 3.
- (a) 4.897 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side of the formula to get x₁, then feed each new value back in, keeping the whole calculator display every time and rounding only at the very end. Working: x₁ = √(5 × 2 + 2) = √12 = 3.46410…; x₂ = √(5 × 3.46410… + 2) = √19.32050… = 4.39551…; x₃ = √(5 × 4.39551… + 2) = √23.97755… = 4.89668…, which is 4.897 correct to 3 decimal places. Answer: 4.897. The distractors: 4.396 is x₂, written down by a candidate who counts the starting value x₀ as the first iterate and so stops one use of the formula early; 3.464 is x₁, the value after using the formula only once; 5.146 is x₄, one use of the formula too many — the mirror image of the first slip, made by a candidate who labels the first value worked out as x₀ rather than as x₁ and so runs the count a step long.
- (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.
- (b) 5 cm³ — When P = 32, V = 480 ÷ 32 = 15 cm³. When P = 24, V = 480 ÷ 24 = 20 cm³. The increase in volume is 20 − 15 = 5 cm³. Giving only the second volume, 20 cm³, forgets to subtract the first volume. Giving only the first volume, 15 cm³, answers the wrong part of the question. Subtracting the two pressures instead of the two volumes, 32 − 24 = 8, mixes up which quantity the question asks for.
- (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.
- (a) It gets closer to zero but never actually reaches it. — y = 60 × (0.5)ˣ is always positive, however large x is, because a positive number raised to any power stays positive. As x increases, (0.5)ˣ gets smaller and smaller but never equals zero, so y approaches zero without ever reaching it. Believing the curve reaches zero when x = 60, because 60 is the starting value, mixes up the y-intercept with a stopping point — an exponential decay curve like this one never actually reaches the x-axis, so this is wrong. Believing the curve goes negative for large x is wrong because multiplying a positive number by (0.5) any number of times can never produce a negative result. Believing the curve levels off at y = 0.5, confusing the base of the exponential with its eventual level, is wrong: the base only controls how fast the curve falls, not where it settles — this curve settles at y = 0, not y = 0.5. Whenever you sketch an exponential decay curve, draw it approaching the x-axis but never touching it.
- (b) 14 m/s — Average speed for a whole journey is total distance divided by total time: 350 ÷ 25 = 14 m/s. Multiplying the distance and time instead of dividing gives 350 × 25 = 8750 m/s. Adding the distance and time instead of dividing gives 350 + 25 = 375 m/s. Inverting the division, working out time divided by distance, gives 25 ÷ 350, which rounds to 0.07 m/s.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.