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
- (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.
- (b) −3/4 — The tangent to a circle at a point is always perpendicular to the radius drawn to that point. The radius from (0, 0) to (3, 4) has gradient 4/3. The gradient of a line perpendicular to a line with gradient m is the negative reciprocal, −1/m, so the tangent's gradient here is −3/4. Using the radius's own gradient, forgetting that the tangent is perpendicular to it, gives 4/3. Negating the radius's gradient without also taking the reciprocal gives −4/3. Taking the reciprocal of the radius's gradient without negating it gives 3/4.
- (d) 12 — Since a₃ = a₂ + a₁, rearranging gives a₂ = a₃ − a₁ = 17 − 5 = 12. 22 comes from adding instead of subtracting: a₃ + a₁ = 17 + 5 = 22. 11 comes from treating the sequence as if it were arithmetic and averaging the two given terms: (5 + 17) ÷ 2 = 11 — but a Fibonacci-type sequence isn't arithmetic, so this doesn't apply. −12 comes from subtracting in the wrong order: a₁ − a₃ = 5 − 17 = −12.
- (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) 3 and 2n + 5 are both factors of 6n + 15 — Factors are the parts multiplied together to make an expression; terms are the parts added together. In 3(2n + 5) the 3 and the bracket 2n + 5 are multiplied, so both of them are factors of 6n + 15. The parts added together are 6n and 15, and those are its two terms, not its factors. A factor need not be a number: a bracket containing letters is a factor in exactly the same way.
- (c) 4.30 — Method: substitute the starting value into the right-hand side to get x₁, then feed each value back in, keeping the whole display and respecting the order of operations, which divides before it subtracts. Working: x₁ = 5 − 3 ÷ 2.5 = 5 − 1.2 = 3.8; x₂ = 5 − 3 ÷ 3.8 = 5 − 0.78947… = 4.21052…; x₃ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.21052… = 5 − 0.7125 = 4.2875; x₄ = 5 − 3 ÷ 4.2875 = 5 − 0.69970… = 4.30029…, which is 4.30 correct to 3 significant figures. Answer: 4.30. The distractors: 4.29 is x₃ = 4.2875 rounded, reached by counting the starting value itself as the first iterate and so stopping one use of the formula early; 3.80 is x₁, the value after a single use of the formula; 2.50 comes from working out (5 − 3) ÷ xₙ instead of 5 − (3 ÷ xₙ), subtracting before dividing, which produces the sequence 0.8, 2.5, 0.8, 2.5 and lands on 2.5 at the fourth step.
- (b) 6x − 3 = 4x + 9 — Method: multiply every term inside the bracket by the number outside it; the right-hand side stays as it is given. Working: 3 × 2x = 6x and 3 × (−1) = −3, so 3(2x − 1) = 6x − 3. Answer: 6x − 3 = 4x + 9. 6x − 1 = 4x + 9 comes from multiplying only the 2x by 3 and leaving the −1 unchanged. 5x − 3 = 4x + 9 comes from adding the 3 to the 2 instead of multiplying, treating 3 × 2x as (3 + 2)x = 5x. 6x − 4 = 4x + 9 comes from working out 3 × (−1) as −1 − 3 = −4 instead of 3 × (−1) = −3.
- (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.
- (c) Correct: 3y = 4 − x gives f⁻¹(x) = (4 − x)/3 — Swap x and y: x = 4 − 3y. Add 3y to both sides and subtract x from both sides: 3y = 4 − x. Divide by 3: y = (4 − x)/3, which is exactly what Ben wrote — his rearrangement is correct. Check with a value: f(1) = 4 − 3 = 1, and Ben's formula gives (4 − 1)/3 = 1, which matches. 'Correct, but only because f is its own inverse' gives the right verdict for a false reason — f(f(x)) = 4 − 3(4 − 3x) = 9x − 8, which is not x, so f is not self-inverse; Ben's rearrangement is correct for the ordinary algebraic reason above, not because of any special property of f. 'Wrong: sign kept, giving (−4 − x)/3' comes from not carrying the swap through consistently — testing x = 1 gives (−4 − 1)/3 = −5/3, which does not equal 1, so it is wrong. 'Wrong: correct inverse is (x − 4)/3' comes from writing 3y = x − 4 instead of 3y = 4 − x, a sign slip when isolating y — testing x = 1 gives (1 − 4)/3 = −1, which again does not equal 1.
- (b) 1.6 m/s² — Acceleration is the change in velocity divided by the time taken: (11 − 3) ÷ 5 = 8 ÷ 5 = 1.6 m/s². Forgetting to subtract the initial velocity and dividing the final velocity by the time instead gives 11 ÷ 5 = 2.2 m/s². Inverting the fraction, dividing the time by the change in velocity, gives 5 ÷ 8 = 0.625 m/s². Finding the change in velocity, 8 m/s, but stopping without dividing by the time gives 8 m/s².
- (c) x = −2 or x = 4 — The solutions of x² − 2x − 8 = 0 are the x-values where y = 0. From the table, y = 0 when x = −2 and when x = 4, so those are the two solutions. Distractor origins: x = −1 or x = 3 picks the pair of x-values that give equal (but non-zero) y-values instead of y = 0; x = 0 or x = −8 mixes up an x-value with its corresponding y-value; x = −2 only reads off one of the two roots and misses the other.
- (c) −0.5 — fg(x) = f(g(x)) = f(x²) = x² + 2. gf(x) = g(f(x)) = g(x + 2) = (x + 2)² = x² + 4x + 4. Setting fg(x) = gf(x): x² + 2 = x² + 4x + 4. Subtract x² from both sides: 2 = 4x + 4. Subtract 4 from both sides: −2 = 4x, so x = −0.5. Writing 1.5 comes from adding the 4 instead of subtracting it: 4x = 2 + 4 = 6, giving x = 1.5. Writing 'no solution' comes from expanding (x + 2)² as x² + 4 using (a + b)² = a² + b², losing the middle term — the equation then reads x² + 2 = x² + 4, which has no solution, but the expansion itself is wrong. Writing 0 comes from treating gf(x) as g(x) + f(x) instead of g(f(x)): x² + (x + 2) = x² + 2 gives x = 0, but that adds the two functions rather than composing them.
- (d) n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, so one of them must be even; this makes n(n + 1) even, so 4n(n + 1) is 4 × an even number, which is a multiple of 8. — The proof needs a reason why n(n + 1) is even, not just an assertion. n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, so exactly one of them is even; multiplying by that even number keeps n(n + 1) even, so 4n(n + 1) = 4 × (an even number), and 4 × an even number always has a further factor of 2 hidden inside it, making the whole product a multiple of 8. The option 'is a multiple of 4, and because n and n + 1 are consecutive integers, it must be a multiple of 8' asserts the multiple-of-8 conclusion directly from 'multiple of 4' and 'consecutive integers' without ever showing that n(n + 1) itself is even — the missing step is exactly what earns the mark. The option '4n is always a multiple of 4 ... which means it is a multiple of 8' mistakes 4n being a multiple of 4 for the whole product 4n(n + 1) being a multiple of 8; that extra factor of 2 only comes from n(n + 1) being even, not from 4n alone. The option that expands to 4n² + 4n and calls it 'clearly a multiple of 8' never checks for a factor of 2 beyond the 4 already there — the word 'clearly' is standing in for a missing argument.
- (a) (n − 5)/2 — Method: do the subtraction first, keep it together as a single bracket, then divide that whole bracket by 2. Working: 'subtract 5 from n' is (n − 5); 'divide the result by 2' means the whole bracket goes over 2, giving (n − 5)/2. Answer: (n − 5)/2. n/2 − 5 comes from dividing n by 2 first and only then subtracting 5, the wrong order. 2(n − 5) comes from multiplying by 2 instead of dividing. (5 − n)/2 comes from subtracting n from 5 instead of subtracting 5 from n, the wrong way round.
- (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).
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.