Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Geometry and measures worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions across the geometry and measures statements at Higher tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Answer key: Geometry and measures worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) Triangular prism — Count the given properties against each solid. A triangular prism has 5 faces (2 triangular ends + 3 rectangular sides), 9 edges and 6 vertices — this matches exactly, so the solid is a triangular prism. A square-based pyramid also has 5 faces, but 8 edges and 5 vertices, and only one face is a square rather than three rectangles — the edge and vertex counts don't match. A cuboid has 6 faces, 12 edges and 8 vertices, none of which match the numbers given. A tetrahedron has 4 faces, all triangles, with 6 edges and 4 vertices — too few faces, and no rectangular faces at all.
- (b) (−2, −1) — Method: apply the reflection to the point first, then rotate the image about the given centre, in the order the question states them. Working: reflecting (3, 4) in the line y = 1 keeps x = 3 and puts the image as far below the line as the point is above it: 4 is 3 units above y = 1, so the image is 3 units below, at 1 − 3 = −2 (the same as 2 × 1 − 4 = −2). The reflected point is (3, −2). Rotating (3, −2) by 90° clockwise about (1, 1): subtracting the centre gives 3 − 1 = 2 and −2 − 1 = −3, the clockwise rule swaps and negates these to give −3 and −2, and adding the centre back gives 1 + (−3) = −2 and 1 + (−2) = −1. The final image is (−2, −1). Answer: (−2, −1). Reflect before you rotate, exactly as the design process is described, and rotate about the CENTRE (1, 1) given in the question rather than the origin: either mistake, or reversing the two steps, sends the tile to a different point.
- (a) (−2, 6) — Translating by the vector (−5, 4) means adding −5 to the x-coordinate and adding 4 to the y-coordinate: (3 + (−5), 2 + 4) = (−2, 6). (8, 6) comes from treating −5 as +5, adding instead of subtracting on the x-coordinate. (−2, −2) keeps the x-coordinate correct but subtracts 4 from the y-coordinate instead of adding it. (7, −3) comes from swapping the two components of the vector, applying 4 to the x-coordinate and −5 to the y-coordinate.
- (b) Rotate 180° about the origin, then translate by (6, 0). — Rotating 180° about the origin sends (x, y) to (−x, −y); applied to T's vertices (1, 1), (3, 1) and (1, 4) this gives (−1, −1), (−3, −1) and (−1, −4). Translating this image by the vector (6, 0) adds 6 to every x-coordinate, giving (5, −1), (3, −1) and (5, −4), which matches T′ exactly. Reflecting in the x-axis first changes the sign of the y-coordinate only, and translating that image by (6, 0) gives (7, −1), (9, −1) and (7, −4) — the wrong triangle. Using the correct rotation but translating by (4, 0) instead of (6, 0) gives (3, −1), (1, −1) and (3, −4), shifted 2 units too far left. Reflecting in the y-axis first changes the sign of the x-coordinate only, so translating that image by (6, 0) leaves every y-coordinate positive, giving (5, 1), (3, 1) and (5, 4) — the correct x-coordinates but the wrong sign throughout on y.
- (b) 5 cm by 3 cm — The plan view looks straight down on the cuboid's footprint, so it shows the length (5 cm, left to right) and the depth (3 cm, front to back) — the two dimensions that do not involve height. "5 cm by 2 cm" repeats the front elevation's dimensions, pairing the length with the height instead of the depth. "3 cm by 2 cm" repeats the side elevation's dimensions, again pairing the depth with the height rather than with the length. "5 cm by 5 cm" comes from mistakenly assuming the plan must be a square, pairing the length with itself instead of with the depth.
- (b) 10.5 m² — The area of a trapezium is half of the sum of the parallel sides, multiplied by the width. Add the parallel sides: 2.5 + 4.5 = 7. Multiply by the width: 7 × 3 = 21. Half of 21 is 10.5 m². 21 m² forgets to halve, using the full (2.5+4.5)×3. 3.5 m² averages the two parallel sides, (2.5+4.5)÷2 = 3.5, but forgets to multiply by the width. 6.75 m² treats the bed as a triangle, using only the longer parallel side: half of 4.5 × 3.
- (d) No — the volume factor is 2³ = 8, not the area factor 4. — For similar solids, area scales with the square of the length scale factor and volume scales with its cube — different powers of the same number, so they are not usually equal. The length scale factor here is 2, so the area scale factor is 2² = 4 (Priya's figure) but the volume scale factor is 2³ = 8. Priya is wrong: the correct volume scale factor is 8, not 4. The option claiming area and volume always scale by the same factor treats the two as interchangeable, which is only true for the length factor itself. The option giving 6 comes from multiplying the length factor by the number of dimensions (2 × 3) rather than cubing it. The option repeating '4' for volume simply reuses Priya's own area calculation.
- (b) (3, −5) — Method: apply the rotation to the point first, then translate the image, in the order the question gives them. Working: rotating (4, 1) by 90° clockwise about the origin sends (x, y) to (y, −x), so (4, 1) becomes (1, −4). Translating (1, −4) by the vector (2, −1) gives 1 + 2 = 3 and −4 − 1 = −5, so the final image is (3, −5). Answer: (3, −5). Use the CLOCKWISE rule, (x, y) → (y, −x), not the anticlockwise one, and apply the rotation before the translation, exactly as the question states them: reversing the order or the direction of turn both land on a different point.
- (d) Wrong - the given angle is not the included angle — Sides AB and BC meet at vertex B, so the included angle needed for SAS is angle B, not angle A — the information given is SSA. SSA does not prove congruence: with AB = 10 cm, BC = 7 cm and angle A = 40° there are two different triangles that fit, one with angle C ≈ 74.6° and one with angle C ≈ 105.4°, so Sam's triangles need not be the same shape and size at all. Sam is not correct just because two sides and an angle are equal, since the angle must be the one INCLUDED between those two sides. The condition is not ASA either, because ASA needs two angles, and only one angle is given here. It is also not true that nothing matches — the stated lengths and angle DO match between the two triangles; the problem is which angle was given, not whether the values agree.
- (d) Base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal — DE = DF, so triangle DEF is isosceles with DE and DF as the two equal sides. The base angles opposite those equal sides, angle E and angle F, are therefore equal to each other. Angle F = 58°. A student who instead quotes 'Angles in a triangle sum to 180°' has picked a true fact about triangles, but that fact finds a missing angle from the other two — it does not explain why two angles are equal to each other. A student who quotes 'Angles on a straight line sum to 180°' has confused this with a straight-line angle fact, but no straight line of angles is described in this triangle.
- (c) 22.3 km — The bearing of E from D is 065°, so the bearing of D from E (the back bearing) is 065° + 180° = 245°. The bearing of F from E is 165°, so the angle at E between ED and EF is 245° − 165° = 80°. Using the cosine rule, DF² = DE² + EF² − 2 × DE × EF × cos(80°) = 14² + 20² − 2 × 14 × 20 × cos(80°) = 196 + 400 − 560 × cos(80°). Since cos(80°) ≈ 0.17365, 560 × cos(80°) ≈ 97.24, so DF² ≈ 596 − 97.24 = 498.76. Taking the square root, DF ≈ 22.333, which rounds to 22.3 km. 26.3 km comes from using 100° as the angle at E — the difference between the two given bearings taken directly (165° − 65°) without converting to the back bearing first. 498.8 km is DF² itself, rounded, with the square root never taken. 23.4 km comes from leaving out the factor of 2 in the cosine rule formula, computing DF² = 196 + 400 − 14 × 20 × cos(80°) ≈ 547.38 instead.
- (d) A rectangle — Method: to find the plan view, work out the outline traced when looking straight down onto the solid from directly above, not the outline shown in the angled sketch. Working: this solid has two identical flat round ends joined by one curved surface, and it is lying on its side rather than standing upright; viewed from above, the curved surface gives two straight edges running the full length of the solid, the width of the round ends apart, and each flat round end — seen edge-on from directly above — also becomes a straight edge of that same width, with no curve remaining. Four straight edges, with opposite sides equal and meeting at right angles, form a rectangle. Answer: a rectangle. The distractors: a circle comes from picturing the solid as if it were standing upright on one of its flat ends, giving the plan of an upright version instead of working out the plan of the solid as it actually lies. An oval comes from copying the foreshortened shape of a round end as it is drawn in the angled sketch, instead of working out the true shape seen from directly above, which has no such foreshortening. A rectangle with rounded ends comes from carrying the curve of the round ends over into the plan view, when in fact a flat round end viewed edge-on from directly above shows no curve at all, only a straight edge.
- (a) Reflex + non-reflex angle BOD = 360°, so 2a + 2c = 360°. — A correct proof must build in a strictly logical order: the reflex and non-reflex angles at O, which together make a complete turn about the centre, must be added to 360° before 2a and 2c can be combined and divided. The statement 'Reflex + non-reflex angle BOD = 360°, so 2a + 2c = 360°' is the only one that follows directly from having 2a and 2c already established, and it is exactly what is needed before the final division step. Jumping straight to 'Divide by 2 throughout to get a + c = 180°' skips the step that justifies why 2a + 2c equals 360° in the first place — there is nothing yet to divide. Repeating 'Angle BOD is 2a and 2c, by the centre theorem' does not move the proof forward at all, since that fact has already been established in the sentence given. Introducing 'OB = OD are radii, so triangle OBD is isosceles' brings in an unrelated triangle and an unrelated method that plays no part in this particular proof.
- (d) No — third angle is also fixed — Since both braces have angles of 55° and 65°, their third angles must both be 60°, because angles in a triangle sum to 180°. All three angles now match, so the braces have the same shape. Both 8 cm sides lie in the same position relative to those angles — opposite the 55° angle in each brace — so one matching pair of corresponding sides fixes the size as well, exactly as ASA or AAS would. The braces are therefore guaranteed to be congruent and the carpenter is incorrect: 'No — third angle is also fixed' is correct. 'Yes — side must be included' is wrong because the side does not have to lie physically between the two named angles; once the third angle is fixed, a corresponding equal side anywhere is enough. 'No — any two angles enough alone' is wrong because two equal angles with no side length at all would only show the triangles are similar, not congruent. 'Yes — third angle may differ' is wrong because the third angle is fixed at 60° by the angle sum and cannot vary.
- (b) £709 — Method: first find the area of the triangular platform with Area = (1/2)ab sin C, then multiply by the cost per square metre. Working: Area = 1/2 × 11.5 × 8.2 × sin 72° = 44.8 m² (1 d.p.); cost = area × £15.80, which rounds to £709 to the nearest pound. Answer: £709. Leaving out the 1/2 in the area formula doubles the area, giving a cost of £1417; using cos 72° instead of sin 72° gives a much smaller area and a cost of £230; and squaring the 11.5 m side instead of multiplying the two different given sides together gives a cost of £994. Find the exact area first — don't round it early — then multiply by the cost per square metre and round only the final answer.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.