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
- (c) x = −2 or x = 4 — The solutions of x² − 2x − 8 = 0 are the x-values where y = 0. From the table, y = 0 when x = −2 and when x = 4, so those are the two solutions. Distractor origins: x = −1 or x = 3 picks the pair of x-values that give equal (but non-zero) y-values instead of y = 0; x = 0 or x = −8 mixes up an x-value with its corresponding y-value; x = −2 only reads off one of the two roots and misses the other.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 6x + 6 — Perimeter = 2[(2x + 5) + (x − 2)] = 2(3x + 3) = 6x + 6. A candidate who adds the length and width but forgets to double for the perimeter gets 3x + 3. A candidate who makes a sign error and adds 2 instead of subtracting it before doubling gets 2[(2x + 5) + (x + 2)] = 6x + 14. A candidate who multiplies the length and width instead of adding them, confusing the perimeter formula with the area formula, and then doubles that product, gets 2(2x + 5)(x − 2) = 4x² + 2x − 20.
- (b) 3 — At the limit, L = √(2L + 3). Squaring both sides: L² = 2L + 3, so L² − 2L − 3 = 0, which factorises as (L − 3)(L + 1) = 0, giving L = 3 or L = −1. Since the sequence of iterates stays positive throughout, the limit is L = 3. Taking the other, negative root without rejecting it gives −1. Treating the equation L = 2L + 3 as already linear, forgetting to square both sides first, gives −L = 3, so L = −3. A sign error when factorising, writing (L + 3)(L − 1) = 0 instead of (L − 3)(L + 1) = 0, gives L = 1.
- (a) It has a solution between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7 — f(2.6) is negative and f(2.7) is positive, so the graph of f crosses the x-axis between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7, meaning the equation has a solution there. Choosing 'x = 2.6 is a solution' reads an end of the interval as the root itself, but f(2.6) = −1.424, which is not zero — the change of sign locates a root between the two values, it does not land on either of them. Choosing 'between x = −2.6 and x = −2.7' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.6 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no root in this interval' misapplies the rule, which needs a CHANGE of sign — and a change of sign is exactly what these two values show.
- (d) The cost increases by about £10 per extra item — Gradient = change in cost ÷ change in items = (800 − 400) ÷ (70 − 30) = 400 ÷ 40 = 10. The units of the gradient are £ per item, so the cost is increasing by about £10 for every extra item produced, near x = 50. Subtracting in the wrong order, (400 − 800) ÷ (70 − 30) = −10, gives the right size but the wrong sign — check which point comes first each time. Leaving out the division by 40 gives £400 per item; dividing the wrong way round, 40 ÷ 400 = 0.1, gives £0.10 per item.
- (a) 27 — Method: let the smaller number be n, so the larger number is n + 9. Form the equation n + (n + 9) = 45. Working: simplify: 2n + 9 = 45, so 2n = 36, giving n = 18. The larger number is 18 + 9 = 27. Answer: 27. 18 is the smaller number, found correctly, but given as the answer to the question asking for the larger number. 22.5 comes from ignoring the "9 more" part and simply halving the total, 45 ÷ 2. 36 comes from a sign error when isolating the constant, treating the equation as 2n = 45 + 9 instead of 2n = 45 − 9.
- (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) 14.1 — Method: in x² + y² = r² the right-hand side is the square of the radius, so take its square root to find the radius, then double the radius because the diameter is twice the radius. Working: r² = 50, so r = √50 = 7.07106…, and the diameter is 2 × 7.07106… = 14.14213…, which is 14.1 correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 14.1. The distractors: 7.1 is the radius, worked out correctly but never doubled, so it answers a question about the radius rather than the diameter; 100.0 comes from doubling the 50 on the right-hand side, treating r² as though it were already the radius; 25.0 comes from halving the 50, treating r² as though it were already the diameter.
- (d) 110 — Method: form the equation 15 + 0.08m = 23.80, where m is the number of minutes, then solve for m. Working: subtract the fixed fee: 0.08m = 23.80 − 15 = 8.80. Divide by the cost per minute: m = 8.80 ÷ 0.08 = 110. Answer: 110 minutes. 1.1 comes from using 8 instead of 0.08 as the cost per minute, forgetting to convert pence to pounds. 297.5 comes from dividing the whole bill by the cost per minute without subtracting the fixed fee first, 23.80 ÷ 0.08. 485 comes from adding the fixed fee to the bill instead of subtracting it, before dividing by the cost per minute, (23.80 + 15) ÷ 0.08.
- (c) 19 — Method: set up the equation 15 + 9n = 186, then subtract the deposit and divide by the cost per student. Working: 9n = 186 − 15 = 171; n = 171 ÷ 9 = 19. Answer: 19 students. 20.67 comes from dividing the whole £186 by £9 without first subtracting the deposit: 186 ÷ 9 ≈ 20.67. 11.8 comes from swapping the two amounts round, subtracting £9 and dividing by £15: (186 − 9) ÷ 15 = 11.8. 22.33 comes from adding the deposit instead of subtracting it: (186 + 15) ÷ 9 ≈ 22.33.
- (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.
- (c) Fastest at t = 2 min — steepest gradient. — The rate of cooling is given by the size (magnitude) of the gradient, ignoring its sign — the steeper the tangent, the faster the temperature is changing. Of −8, −3 and −0.5, the gradient −8 has the greatest magnitude, so the tea is cooling fastest at t = 2 minutes. 'Fastest at t = 20 min — largest gradient' confuses the signed value with the size of the rate: −0.5 is the largest NUMBER of the three, but it's the smallest in magnitude, meaning the tea is barely cooling at all by then. 'Cools at the same rate throughout' ignores that the three gradients are different sizes, not just all negative. 'Fastest at t = 10 min — the middle reading' isn't a mathematical reason at all — the gradients themselves have to be compared, not their position in the list.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.