Printable · GCSE Higher · ages 14-16
Number worksheet — GCSE Higher
Fifteen questions across the number statements at Higher tier. Choose the non-calculator filter to rehearse Paper 1, which counts for a third of the marks.
Non-calculator
Number worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- 1.A 3-character PIN starts with one letter chosen from A, B, C, D and E, followed by two different digits chosen from 1 to 9 (no digit may be used twice in the same PIN). Work out how many different PINs are possible.
- 2.Work out (2/3)² + (1/2)². Give your answer as a fraction.
- 3.Work out 36 ÷ (2 × 3)
- 4.£60 is shared between Amir, Bo and Chen in the ratio 1:2:3. Work out the fraction of the £60 that Amir and Bo receive together.
- 5.A photograph uses 4 × 10⁶ bytes of storage. A memory card holds 3.2 × 10¹⁰ bytes. Work out how many of these photographs the card can hold. Give your answer in standard form.
- 6.p = 24 and q = 6, each correct to the nearest integer. Work out the greatest degree of accuracy to which p ÷ q can be guaranteed correct.
- 7.Find the missing number: ▢ ÷ 15 = 24
- 8.Work out 100 − 4 × 5²
- 9.The decimal 0.272727... repeats the block 27 for ever. Write 0.27 recurring as a fraction in its simplest form.
- 10.A plank has length a = 12 cm and a second plank has length b = 7 cm, each correct to the nearest centimetre. Work out the upper bound of a + b.
- 11.A car manufacturer offers a car in 6 colours and 4 trim levels. Two colour-and-trim combinations are not available: red with sport trim, and white with sport trim. Work out how many different colour-and-trim combinations are available.
- 12.Nadia has £84. She spends 3/7 of it on a jacket and the rest on a bag. Work out the ratio of the amount spent on the jacket to the amount spent on the bag, in its simplest form.
- 13.A florist has 60 red roses and 84 white roses. She wants to make identical bunches using all the flowers, with the greatest possible number of bunches. Work out how many red roses will be in each bunch.
- 14.Four students each estimate √70 without a calculator. Ben says: '8² = 64 and 9² = 81, and 70 is about a third of the way from 64 to 81, so √70 ≈ 8.3.' Chloe says: '8.5² = 72.25, which is close to 70 but a little too big, so I'll bring it down slightly to √70 ≈ 8.4.' Dan says: '9² = 81 is closer to 70 than 8² = 64 is, so √70 ≈ 8.9.' Ella says: '8² = 64 and 9² = 81, so I'll just take the midpoint of 8 and 9: √70 ≈ 8.5.' Given that √70 = 8.3666... to 4 decimal places, whose estimate is closest?
- 15.A number, x, is truncated (not rounded) to 1 decimal place and the result is 6.2. Write down the error interval for x.
Answer key
- (c) 360 — There are 5 choices for the letter. The first digit can be any of the 9 digits from 1 to 9, giving 9 choices, and the second digit must differ from the first, leaving 8 choices. By the product rule, the number of PINs is 5 × 9 × 8 = 360. Allowing the second digit to repeat the first, ignoring the 'no digit twice' rule, gives 5 × 9 × 9 = 405. Adding the numbers of choices instead of multiplying them, 5 + 9 + 8, gives 22. Treating the pair of digits as an unordered choice, rather than as a first digit followed by a second digit in a fixed order, halves the digit count: 5 × (9 × 8 ÷ 2) = 180.
- (c) 25/36 — Method: square a fraction by squaring its numerator and its denominator separately, then add the two results over a common denominator. Working: (2/3)² = 4/9 and (1/2)² = 1/4; the lowest common denominator of 9 and 4 is 36, so 4/9 = 16/36 and 1/4 = 9/36, and 16 + 9 = 25. Answer: 25/36. The distractors: 49/36 comes from adding the two fractions first and squaring the total, giving (7/6)²; 5/13 comes from squaring correctly but then adding the numerators and the denominators, as (4 + 1)/(9 + 4); 7/3 comes from doubling each fraction instead of squaring it, giving 4/3 + 1.
- (c) 6 — 2 × 3 = 6, then 36 ÷ 6 = 6. Ignoring the brackets and working left to right gives 36 ÷ 2 = 18, then 18 × 3 = 54. Multiplying by the bracket instead of dividing by it gives 2 × 3 = 6, then 36 × 6 = 216. Dividing by only the 2 inside the bracket, and ignoring the × 3, gives 36 ÷ 2 = 18.
- (a) 1/2 — The ratio 1:2:3 has 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts in total. Amir and Bo together receive 1 + 2 = 3 of those parts, so together they receive 3/6 of the £60, which simplifies to 1/2. Using only Amir's single part, 1/6, ignores Bo's share entirely. Adding Bo's and Chen's parts instead of Amir's and Bo's, 2 + 3 = 5, gives 5/6. Comparing Amir and Bo's 3 parts to Chen's 3 parts, rather than to the total of 6 parts, gives 3/3 = 1.
- (a) 8 × 10³ — Method: divide the capacity of the card by the size of one photograph, dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices, then bring the coefficient back into the range 1 to 10. Working: 3.2 ÷ 4 = 0.8 and 10 − 6 = 4, which gives 0.8 × 10⁴; a coefficient of 0.8 is smaller than 1, so the decimal point moves one place to the right and the index falls by 1. Answer: 8 × 10³. The distractors: 8 × 10⁴ comes from correcting 0.8 to 8 without reducing the index, which makes the answer ten times too large; 1.28 × 10¹⁷ comes from multiplying the two numbers instead of dividing them, since 3.2 × 4 = 12.8 and 10 + 6 = 16; 8 × 10¹⁵ comes from dividing the coefficients but adding the indices instead of subtracting them.
- (a) the nearest whole number — The error intervals are 23.5 ≤ p < 24.5 and 5.5 ≤ q < 6.5. The minimum of p ÷ q is 23.5 ÷ 6.5 ≈ 3.615, and the maximum is 24.5 ÷ 5.5 ≈ 4.455. Both of these round to 4 at the nearest whole number, so the answer is guaranteed correct to the nearest whole number — but not to the nearest 0.1, since 3.615 rounds to 3.6 while 4.455 rounds to 4.5, which do not agree. Claiming the nearest 0.1 assumes every figure a calculator shows is trustworthy, without checking whether the bounds actually agree that far. Claiming only the nearest 10 badly understates how much can be guaranteed here, since both bounds already round to 4, not merely to 0. Saying no degree of accuracy can be guaranteed gives up before checking whether the bounds agree at any level at all.
- (a) 360 — The inverse of ÷ 15 is × 15, so the missing number is 24 × 15 = 360. Subtracting instead of multiplying gives 24 − 15 = 9. Dividing by 15 again instead of multiplying gives 24 ÷ 15 = 1.6. Adding instead of multiplying gives 24 + 15 = 39.
- (a) 0 — Method: BIDMAS works through the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: 5² = 25, then 4 × 25 = 100, and finally 100 − 100 = 0. Answer: 0. The distractors: 2400 comes from working from left to right and subtracting first, giving (100 − 4) × 25 = 96 × 25 = 2400; −300 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (4 × 5)² = 20² = 400 and then 100 − 400 = −300; 60 comes from reading 5² as 5 × 2 = 10, so that 4 × 10 = 40 and 100 − 40 = 60.
- (c) 3/11 — Method: let a letter stand for the recurring decimal, multiply by the power of ten that shifts exactly one repeating block past the point, subtract the original equation so that the recurring tail cancels, then solve and cancel. Working: let x = 0.272727...; the repeating block is two digits long, so multiply by 100 to give 100x = 27.272727...; subtracting gives 99x = 27, so x = 27/99; the highest common factor of 27 and 99 is 9, and 27 ÷ 9 = 3 with 99 ÷ 9 = 11. Answer: 3/11. The distractors: 27/100 comes from writing the repeating block over 100 instead of over 99, forgetting that subtracting x leaves 99x rather than 100x; 3/10 comes from rounding the decimal to one place and converting 0.3; 2/9 comes from treating only the 2 as recurring and converting 0.222... instead.
- (b) 20 — Each length has its own error interval: 11.5 ≤ a < 12.5 and 6.5 ≤ b < 7.5. The upper bound of a sum is found by adding the upper bounds of both quantities: 12.5 + 7.5 = 20. Bounding only one of the two lengths and adding the other quantity's given value unbounded, 12.5 + 7 = 19.5, misses that both measurements carry their own uncertainty. Adding the lower bounds instead of the upper bounds, 11.5 + 6.5 = 18, gives the lower bound of the sum, not the upper one. Using a whole centimetre of error either side instead of half a centimetre, (12 + 1) + (7 + 1) = 21, comes from forgetting the error is half the rounding unit.
- (c) 22 — Without restriction there are 6 × 4 = 24 combinations. Two specific combinations are not available, so subtract 2: 24 − 2 = 22. 24 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 23 comes from subtracting only 1 of the 2 excluded combinations. 18 comes from removing the whole sport trim level, 6 × 3 = 18, instead of removing just the two excluded combinations.
- (c) 3:4 — The jacket costs 3/7 of £84, which is 3 × (84 ÷ 7) = 3 × 12 = £36. The bag then costs the rest of the money, £84 − £36 = £48. The ratio of the jacket to the bag is 36:48, which simplifies to 3:4. Writing the fraction spent on the jacket, 3/7, directly as the ratio, without working out that the bag's share is the remaining 4/7, gives 3:7. Giving the ratio the wrong way round, bag to jacket instead of jacket to bag, gives 4:3. Assuming the jacket and bag cost the same, ignoring the fraction given, gives 1:1.
- (d) 5 — Method: the greatest number of identical bunches is the highest common factor of the two flower totals; then divide the red roses by that number of bunches. Working: 60 = 2² × 3 × 5 and 84 = 2² × 3 × 7, so their highest common factor is 2² × 3 = 12. That means 12 bunches, and 60 ÷ 12 = 5 red roses in each. 7 is the number of white roses in each bunch, since 84 ÷ 12 = 7, not red roses. 12 is the number of bunches itself, not the number of red roses in one bunch. 20 comes from working out 60 ÷ 3 = 20, dividing by only part of the highest common factor. Answer: 5.
- (b) Chloe's estimate — √70 = 8.3666... to 4 decimal places. Comparing each estimate against this: Ben's 8.3 is 0.0666 away; Chloe's 8.4 is only 0.0334 away; Dan's 8.9 is 0.5334 away; Ella's 8.5 is 0.1334 away. Chloe's estimate is closest, because her method tests an actual calculation, 8.5² = 72.25, sees that it overshoots 70, and corrects slightly downward from it, rather than only comparing which perfect square is nearer. Ben's sharing-out is not a bad idea in itself — 70 sits 6 of the way along the 17 from 64 to 81, so 'about a third of the way' from 8 to 9 points at roughly 8.35 — but he then rounds that position down to 8.3, and it is that rounding, not the sharing-out, that leaves him twice as far from √70 as Chloe. Dan's claim that 81 is closer to 70 than 64 is is backwards: 70 − 64 = 6, while 81 − 70 = 11, so 64 is in fact the nearer square, which makes his estimate of 8.9 the furthest from the truth of all four. Ella's plain midpoint of 8 and 9 tests nothing at all: √70 does not sit halfway between 8 and 9, and her 8.5 lands further from √70 than Chloe's checked estimate does.
- (b) 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3 — Truncating simply cuts off the digits after the required decimal place instead of rounding them, so every value from 6.2 up to (but not reaching) 6.3 truncates to 6.2. This gives the error interval 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3, with no allowance made on the lower side because truncation never rounds a smaller value up into this interval. Using 6.15 ≤ x < 6.25 applies the rounding rule of going half a unit either side, which does not apply to truncation. Writing 6.1 < x ≤ 6.2 puts the interval below 6.2 instead of above it. Writing 6.2 ≤ x ≤ 6.3 wrongly includes 6.3, which truncates down to itself, not to 6.2.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.