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) (3, 9) — Reflecting in the horizontal line y = 2 keeps the x-coordinate the same and maps y to 2 × 2 − y = 4 − (−5) = 9, so S = (3, 9). A candidate who uses k − y instead of 2k − y gets 2 − (−5) = 7, giving (3, 7). A candidate who reflects in the x-axis instead of the line y = 2, simply changing the sign of y, gets (3, 5). A candidate who also changes the sign of the x-coordinate, as if reflecting in both axes, gets (−3, 9).
- (b) 158 minutes — Rearranging C = 15 + 0.2m for m: subtract 15 from both sides to get C − 15 = 0.2m, then divide by 0.2: m = (C − 15)/0.2. Substituting C = 46.60: m = (46.60 − 15)/0.2 = 31.60/0.2 = 158. Answering 233 minutes comes from dividing the whole £46.60 by 0.2 without first taking off the £15 fixed charge. Answering 308 minutes comes from adding the £15 instead of subtracting it: (46.60 + 15)/0.2. Answering 218 minutes divides first and subtracts 15 afterwards, in the wrong order: 46.60/0.2 − 15 = 233 − 15 = 218. Ali made 158 minutes of calls.
- (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.
- (a) 271 m — The reading at t = 12 isn't in the table, so it must be interpolated between t = 10 (35 m/s) and t = 14 (27 m/s): the velocity falls by 8 m/s over the 4-second gap, so over 2 seconds it falls by 4 m/s, giving 35 − 4 = 31 m/s. The trapezium rule then uses three strips of unequal width, 4, 6 and 2 seconds, with areas of 40, 165 and 66: 40 + 165 + 66 = 271 m. Writing 267 m comes from skipping the interpolation and using the table's t = 14 reading, 27, directly as the height at t = 12. Writing 282 m comes from treating all three strips as though they were 4 seconds wide, instead of using the true gaps of 4, 6 and 2 seconds between the readings. Writing 275 m comes from using the t = 10 reading, 35, at both ends of the final strip, instead of interpolating a new value at t = 12.
- (d) Overestimate — the curve bends upward (convex). — The first differences of the speeds are 3, 5, 7 and 9, so the second differences are 2, 2 and 2 — constant and positive, which means the speed-time graph curves upwards (is convex). On a convex curve, each straight chord used by the trapezium rule lies above the curve, so the trapezium rule overestimates the true distance. 'Underestimate — the curve bends upward' states the same correct geometry but gets the conclusion backwards — a chord above the curve means too much area is counted, not too little. 'Overestimate — the speed values are increasing' uses the wrong evidence: increasing speed alone doesn't tell you whether the curve bends up or down, only the second differences do. 'Underestimate — second differences are constant' confuses a constant second difference with a steady rate of change in speed, which isn't what the second difference of a speed-time table measures.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 118 m — Width = 840 ÷ 35 = 24 m. Perimeter = 2 × (length + width) = 2 × (35 + 24) = 2 × 59 = 118 m. The option 59 m gives the sum of the length and width but forgets to double it for the perimeter. The option 70 m doubles only the length (2 × 35 = 70) and leaves out the width entirely. The option 48 m doubles only the width (2 × 24 = 48) and leaves out the length entirely.
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (b) 3 and 4 — Method: the graph of f(x) is continuous, so where it crosses the x-axis the value of f(x) changes sign; substitute consecutive integers until one value is negative and the next is positive. Working: f(2) = 8 − 6 − 20 = −18, f(3) = 27 − 9 − 20 = −2 and f(4) = 64 − 12 − 20 = 32. The sign changes from negative to positive between x = 3 and x = 4, so the solution lies there. Answer: 3 and 4. The distractors: 2 and 3 comes from ignoring the −3x term and solving x³ = 20, whose root is 2.71, one interval to the left; 6 and 7 comes from reading x³ as x² and solving x² − 3x − 20 = 0, whose positive root is 6.22; 4 and 5 is the interval immediately after the change of sign, named by a candidate who finds f(4) positive and quotes the interval beginning there instead of the one across which the sign actually turned.
- (c) 72 m — The first section is a triangle with base 4 s and height 8 m/s, area = 1/2 × 4 × 8 = 16 m. The middle section is a rectangle with base 6 s and height 8 m/s, area = 6 × 8 = 48 m. The final section is a triangle with base 2 s and height 8 m/s, area = 1/2 × 2 × 8 = 8 m. Total distance = 16 + 48 + 8 = 72 m. Treating both sloping sections as full rectangles instead of triangles — forgetting the factor of a half — gives 4 × 8 + 6 × 8 + 2 × 8 = 96 m, which is wrong because a sloping speed-time section is a triangle, not a rectangle. Leaving out the final, decreasing section entirely gives 16 + 48 = 64 m, which is wrong because the cyclist is still moving and covering distance while slowing down. Leaving out the middle, constant-speed section gives 16 + 8 = 24 m, which is wrong because the cyclist covers the most distance of all during the 6 seconds of constant speed.
- (b) 12.7 m/s — Find the total distance from the area under the graph, then divide by the total time. Break the graph into its four straight sections: a triangle from (0, 0) to (5, 20), where 5 × 20 = 100 gives an area of 50 m when halved; a rectangle from (5, 20) to (12, 20), area 7 × 20 = 140 m; a trapezium from (12, 20) to (16, 4), where (20 + 4) × 4 = 96 gives an area of 48 m when halved; and a rectangle from (16, 4) to (20, 4), area 4 × 4 = 16 m — a total distance of 50 + 140 + 48 + 16 = 254 m. Dividing by the 20 seconds gives an average speed of 254 ÷ 20 = 12.7 m/s. Writing 15.1 m/s comes from forgetting to halve the trapezium area for the third section, using 96 instead of 48: a total of 302 m, and 302 ÷ 20 = 15.1 m/s. Writing 11.9 m/s comes from leaving out the final section, from (16, 4) to (20, 4), entirely: a total of 238 m, and 238 ÷ 20 = 11.9 m/s. Writing 12.1 m/s comes from dividing the correct total distance by 21 instead of 20 — a fencepost slip, counting the whole seconds from t = 0 to t = 20 inclusive as 21 seconds of travel rather than reading the journey as a duration of 20 seconds: 254 ÷ 21 = 12.1 m/s (1 d.p.).
- (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.