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.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Algebra worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) 2/5 — Method: compare the equation with y = mx + c, where m is the gradient. Working: in y = (2x/5) − 3, the coefficient of x is 2/5. Answer: the gradient is 2/5. −3 comes from confusing the gradient with the y-intercept. 5/2 comes from inverting the fraction that multiplies x. −2/5 comes from wrongly carrying the negative sign from the −3 term onto the coefficient of x.
- (d) 68, and it is a formula — Substituting C = 20 gives F = 1.8 × 20 + 32 = 36 + 32 = 68. The statement F = 1.8C + 32 is a formula because it expresses a general relationship between F and C that holds for any value of C, not just C = 20. A candidate who gets the correct value but calls it an equation is confusing "has an equals sign" with "is an equation" — an equation is only true for particular value(s) of the unknown, whereas this relationship is used to calculate rather than to be solved. A candidate who forgets to multiply C by 1.8 and just adds 32 to 20 gets 52. A candidate who multiplies correctly but forgets to add 32 gets 36.
- (a) Overestimates — trapezium edges lie above the curve. — For a concave-up curve, each chord connecting two points on the curve lies ABOVE the curve between those points, because the curve bends away from the chord underneath it. The trapezium rule uses these chords as the top edges of each trapezium, so the trapeziums cover a larger region than the true area under the curve — the estimate is an overestimate. Saying it underestimates because the edges lie below the curve gets the direction backwards: for a concave-up curve the edges lie above, not below. Saying it overestimates 'because more strips always increase it' gives the right verdict for the wrong reason — using MORE, narrower strips makes a trapezium estimate more accurate and brings it closer to the true area, it does not simply increase the total. Saying the estimate is exact ignores that straight edges cannot follow a curved line perfectly; there is always a gap between the chord and the curve on a bend, which is exactly what makes the rule an estimate rather than an exact calculation.
- (c) 3 — Gradient = (change in y) ÷ (change in x) = (11 − 5) ÷ (4 − 2) = 6 ÷ 2 = 3. A candidate who puts the change in x over the change in y instead would get 2 ÷ 6 = 1/3. A candidate who subtracts the y-coordinates in the reverse order, but not the x-coordinates, would get (5 − 11) ÷ (4 − 2) = −3. A candidate who adds the coordinates instead of subtracting them would get (11 + 5) ÷ (4 + 2) = 16/6 = 8/3.
- (c) 5(x + y − 1) — Method: take out the highest common factor of all three terms and divide every term by it, the number term included. Working: the highest common factor of 5x, 5y and −5 is 5; dividing gives 5x ÷ 5 = x, 5y ÷ 5 = y and −5 ÷ 5 = −1, so the bracket holds x + y − 1. Answer: 5(x + y − 1), which multiplies back out to 5x + 5y − 5. The distractors: 5(x + y + 1) comes from dividing −5 by 5 and losing the minus sign; 5(x + y − 5) comes from dividing only the terms containing a letter by 5 and carrying the −5 into the bracket unchanged; 5(xy − 1) comes from collecting the unlike terms 5x and 5y as 5xy before factorising.
- (a) x = 6 — Method: a minus sign in front of a bracket changes the sign of every term inside it, so expand the bracket first and then simplify. Working: expanding gives 4x − 2x + 6 = 18, which simplifies to 2x + 6 = 18; subtracting 6 from both sides gives 2x = 12, and dividing both sides by 2 gives x = 6. Answer: x = 6. The distractors: x = 12 comes from leaving the −6 unchanged when the bracket is removed, giving 4x − 2x − 6 = 18 and so 2x = 24; x = 24 comes from reaching 2x = 12 correctly and then multiplying by 2 instead of dividing by 2; x = 3 comes from dividing by 2 too early, at 2x + 6 = 18, and dividing only the 2x and the 18 while leaving the 6 untouched, which gives x + 6 = 9.
- (a) −10 — Method: multiply each bracket out, treating the second bracket as being multiplied by −3 because it is subtracted, then collect like terms. Working: 4(2x − 1) = 8x − 4 and −3(x + 2) = −3x − 6, so the expression becomes 8x − 4 − 3x − 6 − 5x; the x terms give 8x − 3x − 5x = 0, so no term in x survives, and the numbers give −4 − 6 = −10. Answer: −10. The distractors: 2 comes from expanding −3(x + 2) as −3x + 6, leaving the numbers −4 + 6; 5x − 10 comes from forgetting the final −5x, so the x terms give 8x − 3x = 5x; −7 comes from multiplying the 4 over only the first term of its bracket, giving 8x − 1 and so the numbers −1 − 6.
- (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.
- (c) −2 — Method: rearrange the equation into the form y = mx + c, then read off the gradient. Working: 3y = 12 − 6x, so dividing every term by 3 gives y = 4 − 2x, so the gradient is −2. Answer: the gradient is −2. 2 comes from dropping the negative sign after dividing by 3. 4 comes from using the y-intercept, 4, instead of the gradient. −6 comes from reading off the coefficient of x before dividing the whole equation by 3.
- (a) Subtracting 4x gives 3 = 10, which is never true. — Method: try to solve the equation as normal and see what happens. Working: subtract 4x from both sides: 4x + 3 − 4x = 4x + 10 − 4x, giving 3 = 10. This statement is false for every value of x, so the equation has no solution. Answer: subtracting 4x gives 3 = 10, which is never true. "x would have to be negative" invents a constraint on x that the equation never states. "It's true for every x" confuses this equation with an identity, where both sides would simplify to the same expression. "x = 7" misreads the false statement 3 = 10 as something to solve for x, rather than recognising it means no solution exists.
- (b) (x − 5)(x + 2) — We need two numbers that multiply to −10 and add to −3: these are −5 and 2, since −5 × 2 = −10 and −5 + 2 = −3. So x² − 3x − 10 = (x − 5)(x + 2). A candidate who swaps the signs, using +5 and −2, gets (x + 5)(x − 2), which expands to x² + 3x − 10 — the wrong middle term. A candidate who picks the factor pair 1 and 10 instead of 2 and 5 gets (x − 10)(x + 1), which expands to x² − 9x − 10. A candidate who makes both factors negative gets (x − 5)(x − 2), which expands to x² − 7x + 10 — the wrong sign on the constant term.
- (d) 128 — In 2p³ the index belongs to p only, so cube p first and multiply by the coefficient afterwards. Cubing gives 4 × 4 × 4 = 64, and then 2 × 64 = 128. Cubing the coefficient as well would mean working out (2 × 4)³, which is 512. Reading the index as an instruction to multiply by 3 gives 2 × 4 × 3 = 24, and ignoring the coefficient altogether leaves 64.
- (a) x = 10 or x = −10 — Rearranging, x² = 100. Taking the square root of both sides gives x = ±10, i.e. x = 10 or x = −10. A candidate who forgets the negative root gives only x = 10. A candidate who halves 100 instead of taking its square root gets x = 50. A candidate who applies the ± sign to 100 itself instead of to its square root gets x = 100 or x = −100.
- (d) 8 — Since the mean of the four numbers is 12.5, their total is 4 × 12.5 = 50. The three known numbers add up to 8 + 15 + 19 = 42, so n = 50 − 42 = 8. A candidate who multiplies the mean by 3 instead of 4 gets a total of 37.5, giving n = 37.5 − 42 = −4.5. A candidate who forgets to subtract the three known numbers and gives the total itself as n states n = 50. A candidate who subtracts the mean from the total of the three known numbers instead of the other way round gets n = 42 − 12.5 = 29.5.
- (c) 5 — Method: substitute the value into the formula, work out the index first and the addition afterwards. Working: x² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, so y = 4 + 1 = 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: −3 comes from squaring only the 2 and keeping the minus sign outside the index, giving −4 + 1; 1 comes from adding the 1 to x before squaring, giving (−2 + 1)²; 4 comes from squaring correctly but stopping there and never adding the 1.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.