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) 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.
- (a) 1.36 — Method: put the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, feed that value back in to get x₂, and round only once the second value has been found. Working: x₁ = 5 ÷ (1 + 2) = 5 ÷ 3 = 1.66666…; x₂ = 5 ÷ (1.66666… + 2) = 5 ÷ 3.66666… = 1.36363…. The digit in the third decimal place is 3, so x₂ = 1.36 correct to 2 decimal places. Answer: 1.36. The distractors: 1.67 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula, given by a candidate who counts the starting value itself as x₁; 1.49 is x₃ = 1.48648…, one use of the formula too many; 1.37 comes from writing x₁ down as 1.66, truncating the display instead of keeping it in full, and then working out 5 ÷ 3.66 = 1.36612…, which rounds up to 1.37.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 25 — Gradient = change in y ÷ change in x = (100 − 0) ÷ (4 − 0) = 100 ÷ 4 = 25. Dividing time by distance instead of distance by time gives 0.04; multiplying the two values instead of dividing gives 400; stopping at the change in distance, 100, forgets to divide by the change in time.
- (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.
- (a) 45 — The ratio between the two given points, one power of x apart, gives b: 405 ÷ 135 = 3, so b = 3. Substituting back, at x = 1, y = A × b, so 135 = A × 3, giving A = 45. Giving the common ratio b itself instead of A confuses which unknown was asked for and produces 3 — wrong, because the question asks for A, not b. Giving 135 instead treats the first given point as the y-intercept and reads A off it directly — wrong, because that point is at x = 1, not x = 0, so 135 is A × b, not A. Assuming A equals b⁰ = 1 by itself, rather than substituting a known point to solve for A, gives 1 — wrong, because b⁰ is always 1 regardless of A; A must be found using an actual (x, y) pair from the graph.
- (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) 130 — Method: substitute the total bill into the formula, then subtract the fixed charge and divide by the cost per text message. Working: 24.50 = 18 + 0.05t, so 0.05t = 24.50 − 18 = 6.50, t = 6.50 ÷ 0.05 = 130. Answer: 130 extra text messages. 490 comes from dividing the whole bill by 0.05 without first subtracting the £18 fixed charge: 24.50 ÷ 0.05 = 490. 13 comes from dividing the £6.50 by 0.5 instead of 0.05, moving the decimal point one place too far: 6.50 ÷ 0.5 = 13. 65 comes from dividing the £6.50 by 0.1 instead of 0.05.
- (c) 6 km/h — Total distance = 8 + 4 = 12 km. Total time = 1 hour + 0.5 hours resting + 0.5 hours = 2 hours. Average speed = total distance ÷ total time = 12 ÷ 2 = 6 km/h. A speed of 8 km/h comes from leaving the resting time out of the total time: 12 ÷ 1.5 = 8. A speed of 4 km/h comes from dividing by too much time, such as double-counting the rest period: 12 ÷ 3 = 4. A speed of 12 km/h simply gives the total distance and forgets to divide by the total time at all.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 8 kg — The cost above the flat £5 charge is 17 − 5 = £12. At £2 per kg, this covers 12 ÷ 2 = 6 kg above the first 2 kg, so the total weight is 2 + 6 = 8 kg. Dividing the full £17 by £2 per kg without first taking off the £5 flat charge gives 17 ÷ 2 = 8.5 kg. Taking off the £5 flat charge and dividing by £2 per kg, but forgetting to add back the 2 kg that the flat charge covers, gives 12 ÷ 2 = 6 kg. Taking off £2 instead of £5 as the flat charge, (17 − 2) ÷ 2 = 7.5 kg, swaps which number is the fixed fee.
- (d) 7 — Method: set up the equation 2.50 + 1.80m = 15.10, then subtract the booking fee and divide by the cost per mile. Working: 1.80m = 15.10 − 2.50 = 12.60; m = 12.60 ÷ 1.80 = 7. Answer: 7 miles. 8.39 comes from dividing the whole £15.10 by £1.80 without first subtracting the booking fee: 15.10 ÷ 1.80 ≈ 8.39. 5.32 comes from swapping the two amounts round, subtracting £1.80 and dividing by £2.50: (15.10 − 1.80) ÷ 2.50 ≈ 5.32. 9.78 comes from adding the booking fee instead of subtracting it: (15.10 + 2.50) ÷ 1.80 ≈ 9.78.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.