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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 4.521 — x₁ = √(3 × 4 + 7) = √19 = 4.358898944. x₂ = √(3 × 4.358898944 + 7) = √20.076696833 = 4.480702716. x₃ = √(3 × 4.480702716 + 7) = √20.442108148 = 4.521294964, which rounds to 4.521. Mislabelling the starting value x₀ as x₁, so that the working stops one iteration too early, reports the true x₂ = 4.480702716, which rounds to 4.481. Working out one iteration too many reports the true x₄ = √(3 × 4.521294964 + 7) = 4.534741987, which rounds to 4.535. Applying the formula in the wrong order, calculating √(3xₙ) + 7 at every step instead of √(3xₙ + 7), gives, from x₀ = 4: √12 + 7 = 10.464101615, then √(3 × 10.464101615) + 7 = 12.602883619, then √(3 × 12.602883619) + 7 = 13.148873950, which rounds to 13.149.
- (c) No — that moment has already passed — Method: call the number of years from now x, add x to both ages, form the equation from the comparison and then interpret the value of x that comes out. Working: in x years Harry will be 14 + x and Mia will be 8 + x, so 14 + x = 2(8 + x); expanding gives 14 + x = 16 + 2x, and subtracting x and 16 from both sides gives x = −2. A negative value of x places the moment two years in the past, when Harry was 12 and Mia was 6 and 12 = 2 × 6, so it is not something still to come. Answer: no — that moment has already passed. The distractors: the claim that it has never happened and never will comes from reaching x = −2 and reading a negative number of years as no solution at all, when x = −2 does not say that no such moment exists but says where it is — two years before now; the claim that it happens when Harry is 16 comes from doubling Mia's present age, 2 × 8 = 16, and reading that as the age Harry has to reach; the claim that it happens when Harry is 20 comes from expanding 2(8 + x) as 8 + 2x, doubling only the x, which gives x = 6.
- (b) 3 — Method: a term is any part of an expression separated from the rest by a + or − sign, including a number on its own. Working: 8 − 3x + 5x² splits at the + and − signs into 8, −3x and 5x² — that is three separate terms. Answer: 3. Ryan's answer of 2 comes from wrongly excluding the number 8, thinking a term must contain a letter. 5 comes from miscounting by treating the coefficients and powers as separate terms as well as the letters. 1 comes from treating the whole expression as a single term because it is written without brackets.
- (c) xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ) — Method: a formula xₙ₊₁ = f(xₙ) is a correct rearrangement when the equation x = f(x) turns back into the equation you started with, so rearrange x³ + 4x − 9 = 0 by making the cube the subject. Working: x³ + 4x − 9 = 0 gives x³ = 9 − 4x, because the 4x and the 9 each change sign as they cross the equals sign; taking the cube root of both sides gives x = ∛(9 − 4x), which is the formula xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ). Answer: xₙ₊₁ = ∛(9 − 4xₙ). The distractors: ∛(9 + 4xₙ) comes from writing x³ = 9 + 4x, moving the 4x across the equals sign without changing its sign; (9 + xₙ³)/4 comes from making the linear term the subject but keeping the sign of the cube, writing 4x = 9 + x³ when the equation gives 4x = 9 − x³; ∛(9 − 4xₙ³) cubes the x in the linear term as well, changing a term the original equation never cubed.
- (c) 17.7 cm — Method: the iteration converges on x, the depth of the box, which is also the side of each square cut away; a square is removed from both ends of the 20 cm side, so the longer side of the base is 20 − 2x. Run the formula three times, then carry out that subtraction. Working: x₁ = (16 × 1² − 1³ + 50) ÷ 60 = 65 ÷ 60 = 1.08333…; x₂ = 67.50636… ÷ 60 = 1.12510…; x₃ = 68.82959… ÷ 60 = 1.14715…. The longer side of the base is 20 − 2 × 1.14715… = 17.70568…, which is 17.7 cm correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 17.7 cm. The distractors: 1.1 cm is x₃ itself rounded, the depth of the box, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 18.9 cm is 20 − 1.14715…, taking away one square instead of two and forgetting that a corner is cut from each end of that side; 9.7 cm is 12 − 2 × 1.14715…, the shorter side of the base, which measures the wrong edge of the sheet.
- (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.
- (b) x ≥ 5 — Expand the bracket: 2(3x − 1) = 6x − 2, so the inequality is 6x − 2 ≥ 4x + 8. Subtract 4x from both sides and add 2 to both sides: 2x ≥ 10. Divide both sides by 2: x ≥ 5. A candidate who only multiplies the 3x by 2 and forgets to multiply the −1 gets 6x − 1 ≥ 4x + 8, leading to x ≥ 4.5. A candidate who adds 4x instead of subtracting it gets 10x ≥ 10, leading to x ≥ 1. A candidate who multiplies by 2 instead of dividing gets x ≥ 20.
- (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.
- (c) 2 — At x = 1, y = 1² − 3(1) = 1 − 3 = −2. At x = 4, y = 4² − 3(4) = 16 − 12 = 4. Gradient of the chord = change in y ÷ change in x = (4 − (−2)) ÷ (4 − 1) = 6 ÷ 3 = 2. Writing down the change in y, 6, and stopping there without dividing by the change in x gives 6. Losing the negative sign on y = −2 at x = 1 and treating it as +2 gives (4 − 2) ÷ (4 − 1) = 2 ÷ 3 = 2/3. Dividing the wrong way round, change in x ÷ change in y, gives (4 − 1) ÷ (4 − (−2)) = 3 ÷ 6 = 1/2.
- (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.
- (b) 12 years — Method: call the number of years t, add t to both ages, and form an equation from the comparison at that future time. Working: in t years the leader will be 44 + t and the scout will be 16 + t, so 44 + t = 2(16 + t); expanding gives 44 + t = 32 + 2t, and subtracting t and 32 from both sides gives t = 12. Checking: in 12 years the leader will be 56 and the scout 28, and 56 = 2 × 28. Answer: 12 years. The distractors: 6 years comes from halving the leader's present age instead, so that the scout has to reach 22, which takes 6 years; 14 years comes from halving the 28-year gap between the two ages; 28 years comes from giving the age gap itself as the number of years.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.