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) 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.
- (c) 307.1 g — The multiplier for one hour is 1 − 0.15 = 0.85. After 3 hours the mass is 500 × 0.85³. Since 0.85 × 0.85 = 0.7225 and 0.85 × 0.7225 = 0.614125, the mass is 500 × 0.614125 = 307.0625 g, which rounds to 307.1 g. Stopping after only 2 hours instead of 3 gives 500 × 0.7225 = 361.25 g, which rounds to 361.3 g — wrong, because the question asks for 3 hours, not 2. Treating the decay as simple (15% × 3 = 45% lost in total, applied once) gives 500 × 0.55 = 275.0 g, which is wrong because the decay compounds hour by hour rather than adding up. Working out the AMOUNT LOST instead of the mass remaining gives 500 − 307.0625 = 192.9375 g, which rounds to 192.9 g — wrong, because the question asks what remains, not what has decayed away. Whenever a percentage decreases repeatedly, multiply by the same factor each period rather than adding the percentages together.
- (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.
- (b) f(1) = −3 and f(2) = 3 — f(1) = 1³ − 1 − 3 = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3. f(2) = 2³ − 2 − 3 = 8 − 2 − 3 = 3. Since f(1) is negative and f(2) is positive, there is a change of sign, so a solution lies between x = 1 and x = 2. Dropping the −x term entirely gives f(1) = 1 − 3 = −2 and f(2) = 8 − 3 = 5. Using x² instead of x³ throughout gives f(1) = 1 − 1 − 3 = −3, which happens to coincide with the correct value at x = 1, but f(2) = 4 − 2 − 3 = −1, which does not show a change of sign at all. Working out −f(x) instead of f(x), a sign-flip error, gives f(1) = 3 and f(2) = −3, the correct sizes but with both signs reversed.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 37.0 — C = 5(98.6 − 32) ÷ 9 = 5 × 66.6 ÷ 9 = 333 ÷ 9 = 37.0. A candidate who forgets to subtract 32 first gets 5 × 98.6 ÷ 9 = 54.8 (1 d.p.). A candidate who forgets the 5 ÷ 9 factor entirely and just works out F − 32 gets 66.6. A candidate who multiplies by 9 ÷ 5 instead of 5 ÷ 9 gets 66.6 × 9 ÷ 5 = 119.9 (1 d.p.).
- (c) 16 km/h — Method: total distance = 12 + 8 = 20 km. Total time = 30 + 30 + 15 = 75 minutes = 1.25 hours. Average speed = total distance ÷ total time = 20 ÷ 1.25 = 16 km/h. Distractor origins: 20 km/h gives the total distance without ever dividing by the total time; 24 km/h uses only the speed of the first stage (12 km in 30 minutes), ignoring the second stage and the rest; 28 km/h averages the two separate stage speeds, 24 km/h and 32 km/h, instead of using total distance over total time.
- (d) 400 m — The distance travelled equals the area under the speed-time graph. The first 10 seconds form a triangle with base 10 and height 20, giving an area of 0.5 × 10 × 20 = 100 m. The next 15 seconds form a rectangle with base 15 and height 20, giving an area of 15 × 20 = 300 m. The total distance is 100 + 300 = 400 m. The option 500 m treats the whole 25 seconds as travelled at the constant 20 m/s, ignoring that the speed was building up during the first 10 seconds: 25 × 20 = 500. The option 300 m only counts the constant-speed section and forgets the triangle section entirely. The option 200 m comes from working out the triangle's area without halving it (10 × 20 = 200) and forgetting the rectangle altogether.
- (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.
- (c) The sequence diverges, moving away from x = 3 — Starting from x₀ = 2.9: x₁ = 2.9² − 6 = 2.41, x₂ = 2.41² − 6 = −0.19, x₃ = (−0.19)² − 6 = −5.96, x₄ = (−5.96)² − 6 = 29.56 — the values swing away from 3 and grow rapidly, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Choosing 'settles towards x = 3' assumes that starting close to a root is enough for a rearrangement to converge to it, which is not always true — this rearrangement changes values too steeply near x = 3 to stay there. Choosing 'settles towards x = −2' assumes a diverging sequence must eventually land on the other root; instead it runs away to increasingly large values. Choosing 'stays constant at 2.9' ignores that applying the formula changes the value at every step.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 1 hour 32 minutes — T = 40 × 1.8 + 20 = 72 + 20 = 92 minutes. Since 92 = 60 + 32, the cooking time is 1 hour 32 minutes. A candidate who rounds the mass to 2 kg before substituting gets 40 × 2 + 20 = 100 minutes = 1 hour 40 minutes. A candidate who forgets to add the 20 minutes gets 40 × 1.8 = 72 minutes = 1 hour 12 minutes. A candidate who multiplies the mass by (40 + 20) = 60 instead of substituting into the formula gets 1.8 × 60 = 108 minutes = 1 hour 48 minutes.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.