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.
Answer key: Algebra worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (d) 28 — The height decreases by 8 cm at each bounce after the first, so the nth bounce reaches 60−(n−1)×8 cm. For the 5th bounce: 60−4×8=60−32=28. A candidate who subtracts 8 one time too many, five times instead of four, would compute 60−5×8=20. A candidate who adds the decrease instead of subtracting it, a sign error, would compute 60+4×8=92. A candidate who works out only the total decrease and forgets to include the starting height of 60 cm would compute just 5×8=40.
- (d) x₂ closer: f(x₂) = 0.0225, nearer to 0 — f(2.6) = 2.6² − 7 = 6.76 − 7 = −0.24, and f(2.65) = 2.65² − 7 = 7.0225 − 7 = 0.0225. The closer a value of x is to the root, the closer f(x) is to zero — regardless of sign. Since |0.0225| = 0.0225 is much smaller than |−0.24| = 0.24, x₂ = 2.65 is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: −0.24 is the smaller value' comes from comparing the SIGNED values of f(x) rather than their distances from zero — −0.24 is indeed less than 0.0225 as a number, but that does not mean x₁ is closer to the root. 'x₁ closer: f(x₁) negative ⇒ nearer root' invents a rule that a negative f(x) means x is closer to the root; the sign of f(x) only tells you which side of the root x is on, not how close it is. 'x₂ is the exact root, since f(x₂) ≈ 0' misreads f(x₂) = 0.0225 as zero; the true root is √7 ≈ 2.6458, so f(2.65) is close to zero but not equal to it, and x₂ is an approximation, not the exact root.
- (a) Outside: OQ² = 221 > r² = 169 — OQ² = 10² + 11² = 100 + 121 = 221. Comparing this with r² = 169: since 221 > 169, OQ > r, so Q lies outside the circle — this is the correct verdict AND the correct working. 'Outside: OQ = 21 (10 + 11) > r = 13' reaches the same Outside verdict, but by invalid working: it adds the coordinates instead of squaring them (10 + 11 = 21, rather than 10² + 11² = 221), so the stated 'OQ' of 21 is not a distance at all — the verdict happens to match, but the method is wrong. 'Inside: OQ ≈ 14.87 < r² = 169' correctly finds the distance OQ = √221 ≈ 14.87, but then compares that DISTANCE with r² = 169 instead of with r = 13 — comparing two different kinds of quantity gives a meaningless, and here wrong, verdict. 'Inside: OQ² = 221 < (2r)² = 676' confuses the radius with the diameter: it compares OQ² with the diameter squared, (2 × 13)² = 676, instead of with r² = 169.
- (b) x = y/3 − 2 — The bracket containing x has been multiplied by 3, so divide both sides by 3 first, which gives y/3 = x + 2. Subtracting 2 from both sides then leaves y/3 − 2 = x, so x = y/3 − 2. Taking the 2 away before dividing gives (y − 2)/3, which divides the 2 by 3 as well, although the 2 was never divided in the original formula. Adding 2 rather than subtracting it gives y/3 + 2, and multiplying by 3 instead of dividing gives 3y − 2.
- (d) It diverges, growing rapidly without limit. — x₁ = 2³ − 2 = 8 − 2 = 6. x₂ = 6³ − 2 = 216 − 2 = 214. x₃ = 214³ − 2 = 9800344 − 2 = 9800342. The values 6, 214, 9800342, … grow far larger at every step, so the sequence diverges rather than settling anywhere. Checking whether the sequence converges to a fixed value near 2 fails, since the terms grow enormously instead of levelling off. Checking for a repeating pair of values also fails, since 6, 214 and 9800342 are all different, with no sign of a return to 6. x₀ = 2 is a fixed point only if 2³ − 2 = 2, but 2³ − 2 = 6, not 2, so the sequence does not stay constant.
- (a) 1 — Method: the value of y when x = 0 is where the line meets the y-axis, which is the constant c in y = mx + c, so the gradient is worked out from the two given points first and the constant follows by substituting one of them. Working: m = (16 − 7) ÷ (5 − 2) = 9 ÷ 3 = 3, so the line is y = 3x + c; substituting x = 2 and y = 7 gives 7 = 3 × 2 + c, so c = 7 − 6 = 1, and the value of y when x = 0 is that constant. Answer: 1. The distractors: 3 comes from stopping at the gradient and offering it as the intercept; 4 comes from stepping back from x = 2 to x = 0 by one unit of x instead of two, 7 − 3 = 4; −1 comes from working the constant out as mx − y, 3 × 2 − 7 = −1, instead of y − mx.
- (b) 1 at x = 90° — The graph of y = sin x rises from (0°, 0) to its maximum value of 1 at x = 90°, a quarter of the way through the period. Thinking the maximum occurs where the graph crosses the y-axis, at the start of the curve, gives 1 at x = 0°, but sin 0° = 0, not the maximum. Thinking the maximum occurs halfway to x = 360°, rather than a quarter of the way, gives 1 at x = 180°, but sin 180° = 0, not the maximum. Swapping the roles of the maximum value and the x co-ordinate at which it occurs gives 90 at x = 1, but the maximum value of sin x is 1, not 90.
- (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.
- (c) Statement (ii) — Statement (ii) opens with 'Since n(n + 1) is even', treating the very fact the proof is meant to establish as if it were already known — that is circular reasoning, assuming the conclusion to help derive itself. Statement (i) only names the two consecutive integers as n and n + 1; it makes no claim about whether their product is even, so it introduces nothing circular. Statement (iii) states the conclusion, and would be a valid final step if statement (ii) had reached 'one of n and n + 1 is even' by a genuine argument, such as considering the cases where n is even or odd separately. Saying the proof assumes nothing circular is wrong, because statement (ii)'s opening clause is exactly that assumption.
- (d) It is n-shaped, since the x² coefficient is negative. — The coefficient of x² is −2, which is negative, so the quadratic curve opens downward — shaped like an n, with a maximum turning point. Saying it is U-shaped focuses only on x² being non-negative and ignores that the −2 in front of it flips the whole curve to open downward. Saying it is a straight line confuses having a constant term with being linear — any equation with an x² term is a curve, not a line. Saying it repeatedly rises and falls like a wave describes a trigonometric graph such as y = sin x, not a quadratic.
- (a) It has a solution between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7 — f(2.6) is negative and f(2.7) is positive, so the graph of f crosses the x-axis between x = 2.6 and x = 2.7, meaning the equation has a solution there. Choosing 'x = 2.6 is a solution' reads an end of the interval as the root itself, but f(2.6) = −1.424, which is not zero — the change of sign locates a root between the two values, it does not land on either of them. Choosing 'between x = −2.6 and x = −2.7' confuses the negative f-VALUE at 2.6 with a negative x-value. Choosing 'no root in this interval' misapplies the rule, which needs a CHANGE of sign — and a change of sign is exactly what these two values show.
- (a) x > 4 — Subtract 2x from both sides: 3x − 3 > 9. Add 3 to both sides: 3x > 12. Divide both sides by 3: x > 4. A candidate who subtracts 3 from 9 instead of adding gets 3x > 6, so x > 2. A candidate who divides correctly but wrongly flips the inequality (as if dividing by a negative) gets x < 4. A candidate who multiplies by 3 instead of dividing gets x > 36.
- (c) 59 — Substitute n = 7: 7² + 2 × 7 − 4 = 49 + 14 − 4 = 59. A sign error on the +2n term, treating it as −2n, gives 49 − 14 − 4 = 31. Working out 7² + 2 × 7 but forgetting to subtract the final 4 gives 49 + 14 = 63. Using n = 6 instead of n = 7 gives 36 + 12 − 4 = 44.
- (b) £115, and C = 40 + 25h is a formula — Substitute h = 3 into the rule, multiplying before adding. The hours cost 25 × 3 = 75, and adding the call-out fee gives 40 + 75 = 115, so the charge is £115. The rule itself links two different quantities, C and h, and lets one be worked out from the other, so it is a formula; an expression would have no equals sign in it. Adding the fee before multiplying gives 65 × 3 = 195, which charges the call-out fee three times over, and stopping at 40 + 25 leaves £65, the charge for a single hour.
- (b) x² + y² = 1369 — For a circle centred at the origin, the radius squared equals the sum of the squares of the coordinates of any point on it: r² = 12² + 35² = 144 + 1225 = 1369. The equation is x² + y² = 1369. x² + y² = 2209 comes from adding the coordinates first and then squaring the sum: (12 + 35)² = 47² = 2209, instead of squaring each coordinate separately. x² + y² = 1225 comes from using only 35² and leaving out the 12² term. x² + y² = 144 comes from using only 12² and leaving out the 35² term.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.