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) 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) 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.
- (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.
- (d) x = −4, y = −19 — x² + 8x − 3 = (x + 4)² − 4² − 3 = (x + 4)² − 19. Substituting x = −4: (−4)² = 16, 8 × (−4) = −32, so 16 − 32 − 3 = −19, confirming the minimum value −19 at x = −4: turning point (−4, −19). Using 8 instead of half of it inside the bracket gives (x + 8)² − 67, turning point (−8, −67) — wrong, because only half the coefficient of x belongs inside the bracket. Reading the bracket's sign directly as the turning point's x-coordinate gives (4, −19) — wrong, because (x + 4)² is zero at x = −4, not x = 4. Computing 16 + 3 = 19 instead of −3 − 16 = −19 flips the sign of the constant, giving (−4, 19) — wrong, since the completed square's constant must be evaluated as −3 minus 16, not 16 plus 3. Check by substitution whenever the sign of a constant feels uncertain.
- (a) Yes — the t² coefficient is negative, giving an n-shape. — The coefficient of t² in h = −5t² + 20t is −5, which is negative, so the graph is n-shaped with a maximum point — this matches the physical story of the rocket rising then falling, but the shape itself is decided by the negative coefficient of t², not by the story alone. Saying the shape comes from the story rather than the coefficient gets the reasoning backwards — the algebra determines the shape, and the story happens to agree with it. Saying it is U-shaped because height starts by increasing confuses the early part of the curve with its overall shape; a U-shaped curve would mean the rocket's height eventually increases again forever, which does not happen here. Saying it is n-shaped only because the rocket lands treats a consequence of the shape as if it were the cause.
- (b) £105 — The hourly charge is 25 × 3 = £75. Adding the call-out fee: £75 + £30 = £105. A candidate who forgets the call-out fee gives just the hourly charge, £75. A candidate who adds the call-out fee to the hourly rate before multiplying by the hours, (30 + 25) × 3, gets £165. A candidate who multiplies the call-out fee by the number of hours instead of the hourly rate, 30 × 3, gets £90.
- (c) 4 years — The yearly multiplier is 1 − 0.12 = 0.88. After 1 year: 2400 × 0.88 = 2112. After 2 years: 2112 × 0.88 = 1858.56. After 3 years: 1858.56 × 0.88 = 1635.5328. After 4 years: 1635.5328 × 0.88 = 1439.27 (2 d.p.), which is the first value below £1,500 — so it takes 4 complete years. Stopping after 3 years, where the value is still £1,635.53, above £1,500, gives 3 years — wrong, because the threshold has not been crossed yet at that point. Continuing for one year longer than needed gives 5 years — wrong, because the value has already fallen below £1,500 by year 4, so year 5 overcounts. Multiplying by the percentage itself instead of by the multiplier — using 0.12 in place of 0.88 — gives 2400 × 0.12 = £288 after a single year, apparently below £1,500 straight away, so 1 year — wrong, because 12% is the part lost each year, and the part left is 88%, so the multiplier is 0.88.
- (b) 0.458 — x₁ = (0.4² + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.16 ÷ 7 = 0.4514 (unrounded, 0.451428...). x₂ = (x₁² + 3) ÷ 7 = (0.2038 + 3) ÷ 7 = 3.2038 ÷ 7 = 0.458 (3 d.p.). Choosing 0.632 divides only the 3 by 7 instead of dividing the whole sum x₁² + 3 by 7. Choosing 0.451 repeats the calculation for x₁ instead of moving on to x₂. Choosing 0.493 uses x₁ itself instead of x₁² inside the formula.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 3.153 — x₁ = √(4 × 1 + 1) = √5 = 2.236067977. x₂ = √(4 × 2.236067977 + 1) = √9.944271908 = 3.153453965, which rounds to 3.153. Reporting x₁ instead of x₂ gives 2.236067977, which rounds to 2.236. A sign error inside the root, using xₙ₊₁ = √(4xₙ − 1) instead of √(4xₙ + 1), gives x₁ = √3 = 1.732050808 and x₂ = √(4 × 1.732050808 − 1) = √5.928203232 = 2.434790182, which rounds to 2.435. Applying the formula in the wrong order, working out √(4xₙ) + 1 at every step instead of √(4xₙ + 1), gives x₁ = √4 + 1 = 3 and x₂ = √(4 × 3) + 1 = 4.464101615, which rounds to 4.464.
- (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.
- (d) x + y = 7 — The midpoint of AB is (−1 + 5)/2, (2 + 8)/2, which is (2, 5). The gradient of AB is (8 − 2)/(5 − (−1)) = 6/6 = 1. The perpendicular bisector has gradient −1 and passes through (2, 5): y − 5 = −(x − 2), which rearranges to x + y = 7. Distractor routes: x − y = −3 uses the gradient of AB itself, 1, rather than its negative reciprocal, giving a line PARALLEL to AB through the midpoint instead of perpendicular to it. x + y = 12 comes from adding the y-coordinates, 2 + 8 = 10, but forgetting to divide by 2, using the midpoint (2, 10) instead of (2, 5). x + y = 4 comes from using A's x-coordinate, −1, directly instead of averaging it with B's, giving the point (−1, 5) instead of the true midpoint (2, 5).
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.