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
- (a) 7.9 m — Method: the iteration converges on the width of the plot, so run the formula three times from the starting value and then add 4 m, because the length is 4 m greater than the width. Working: x₁ = √(30 − 4 × 3) = √18 = 4.24264…; x₂ = √(30 − 4 × 4.24264…) = √13.02943… = 3.60963…; x₃ = √(30 − 4 × 3.60963…) = √15.56147… = 3.94480…. The estimate for the length is 3.94480… + 4 = 7.94480…, which is 7.9 m correct to 1 decimal place. Answer: 7.9 m. The iteration is still oscillating at x₃, so this is the estimate that three uses of the formula give, not a settled value. The distractors: 3.9 m is x₃ itself, the width, given by a candidate who runs the iteration correctly and then stops before the step the question actually asks for; 7.6 m uses x₂ in place of x₃, one use of the formula short, and then adds the 4 m correctly; 15.8 m multiplies the width by 4 instead of adding 4 m to it, reading greater than as a multiplier.
- (b) 4 — Method: form the equation 30 + 25h = 130, where h is the number of hours, then solve for h. Working: subtract the call-out fee from the total bill: 25h = 130 − 30 = 100. Divide by the hourly rate: h = 100 ÷ 25 = 4. Answer: 4 hours. 5.2 comes from dividing the whole bill by the hourly rate without subtracting the fixed fee first, 130 ÷ 25. 3.5 comes from swapping the fee and the rate, subtracting the rate from the bill and dividing by the fee, (130 − 25) ÷ 30. 6.4 comes from adding the call-out fee to the bill instead of subtracting it, before dividing by the rate, (130 + 30) ÷ 25.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 58.8 km/h — Total distance = 100 + 47 = 147 km. Total time = 1.5 + 0.25 + 0.75 = 2.5 hours. Average speed = 147 ÷ 2.5 = 58.8 km/h. Leaving out the 0.25 hours of waiting from the total time gives 147 ÷ 2.25 = 65.3 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because the train is stationary but time is still passing on the whole journey. Using only the first leg gives 100 ÷ 1.5 = 66.7 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because it ignores the second leg of the journey entirely. Working out each leg's own speed (100 ÷ 1.5 = 66.7 km/h and 47 ÷ 0.75 = 62.7 km/h) and then averaging those two speeds gives 64.7 km/h (1 d.p.) — wrong, because the average of two speeds over DIFFERENT times is not the same as total distance divided by total time.
- (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) 2.26 — Method: apply the formula repeatedly, keeping the whole display each time, and stop when two values in a row round to the same 2 decimal places; that shared rounded value is the solution to that accuracy. Working: x₁ = ∛(2 × 2 + 7) = ∛11 = 2.22398…; x₂ = ∛(2 × 2.22398… + 7) = ∛11.44796… = 2.25377…; x₃ = ∛11.50754… = 2.25767…; x₄ = ∛11.51534… = 2.25818…. Now x₃ and x₄ both round to 2.26, so the sequence has settled. Answer: 2.26. The distractors: 2.22 is x₁ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops after one use of the formula; 2.25 is x₂ rounded, quoted by a candidate who stops as soon as two values look close instead of waiting until two consecutive values round to the same figure; 1.91 is ∛7, which comes from ignoring the 2x term and solving x³ = 7 instead.
- (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.
- (b) 235 litres — The flow rate at t = 10 is the gradient of the tangent: change in volume ÷ change in time = (190 − 130) ÷ (12 − 8) = 60 ÷ 4 = 15 litres per minute. Treating this rate as roughly constant for a short interval, the volume 5 minutes after t = 10 is estimated as 160 + 5 × 15 = 235 litres. Using the tangent's own point spacing — 2 minutes, from t = 10 to t = 12 — instead of the 5 minutes actually asked for gives 160 + 2 × 15 = 190, which is just the volume already given at one of the tangent's own points, not an answer to the question asked. Multiplying the gradient by the time WITHOUT adding the starting volume, 5 × 15 = 75, forgets that a rate estimates a CHANGE, which must be added to the starting volume, not given as the answer on its own. Subtracting instead of adding, 160 − 5 × 15 = 85, extrapolates backward in time rather than forward.
- (d) 6.0 — Subtract 1.8 from both sides: 6.3x ≤ 38.2. Divide both sides by 6.3: x ≤ 6.0634… . The question asks for the greatest value to 1 decimal place that still satisfies the inequality. Testing 6.1: 6.3 × 6.1 + 1.8 = 40.23, which is more than 40, so 6.1 fails. Testing 6.0: 6.3 × 6.0 + 1.8 = 39.6, which is no more than 40, so 6.0 works and is the greatest such value. A candidate who simply rounds 6.0634… to 1 decimal place answers 6.1, without checking that it satisfies the inequality. A candidate who adds 1.8 instead of subtracting works out 41.8 ÷ 6.3 and answers 6.6. A candidate who forgets the 1.8 altogether divides 40 by 6.3 and answers 6.3.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 4 — Rectangle 1: P = 2(9 + 4) = 2 × 13 = 26 cm. Rectangle 2: P = 2(6 + 5) = 2 × 11 = 22 cm. Difference = 26 − 22 = 4 cm. 2 comes from finding the difference between (l + w) for each rectangle, 13 − 11 = 2, but forgetting to double it. 26 comes from giving rectangle 1's whole perimeter instead of the difference between the two. 6 comes from doubling only the change in length, 2 × (9 − 6), and ignoring that the width also changed.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.