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.Write 200 as a product of its prime factors, using index notation.
- 2.A cyclist travels 40 km, correct to the nearest 10 km, in a time of 3 hours, correct to the nearest hour. Work out the maximum possible average speed, in km/h.
- 3.A restaurant adds a service charge of 15% to a bill of £120. Work out the service charge.
- 4.Simplify √45.
- 5.Leah measures the length of her classroom with a tape measure marked in centimetres. She writes the length down as 7.3157 m. Give a reason why this is not an appropriate degree of accuracy.
- 6.Write these fractions in order, starting with the smallest: 2/3, 3/5, 5/6, 1/2
- 7.To estimate the cost of buying 38.7 m of rope at £21.40 per metre, both numbers are first rounded to 1 significant figure. Work out the estimate.
- 8.A number, x, is truncated (not rounded) to 1 decimal place and the result is 6.2. Write down the error interval for x.
- 9.Light travels at 2.998 × 10⁸ metres per second. A distant object in space is 3.1 × 10¹⁵ metres from Earth. Work out an estimate for the number of seconds light takes to travel from the object to Earth, by rounding each number to 1 significant figure.
- 10.2/3 of an amount of money is £30. Work out the amount.
- 11.Robert is converting 0.999... (with the 9s recurring forever) into a fraction. He lets x = 0.999... . Multiplying by 10 gives 10x = 9.999... . Subtracting x from 10x gives 9x = 9, so x = 1. Which statement correctly explains this result?
- 12.Work out 3 × (−2)² − 5
- 13.A garden path is measured by Jon as 12 m, correct to the nearest metre, and by Mia as 12.6 m, correct to the nearest 0.1 m. Which statement about the two measurements is correct?
- 14.A roll of ribbon is 8.4 m long. Ribbon is cut into pieces that are each 0.6 m long. Work out how many complete pieces can be cut from the roll.
- 15.A necklace is made from red beads and gold beads in the ratio 7 : 3. What fraction of the beads are gold?
Answer key
- (d) 2³ × 5² — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number, then write any repeated prime using a power. Working: 200 ÷ 2 = 100, 100 ÷ 2 = 50, 50 ÷ 2 = 25, 25 ÷ 5 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 200 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 5 × 5, written as 2³ × 5². 2² × 5³ swaps the two powers, giving 4 × 125 = 500, not 200. 2³ × 5 leaves out one of the two 5s, giving 8 × 5 = 40, not 200. 2 × 5³ leaves out two of the three 2s, giving 2 × 125 = 250, not 200. Answer: 2³ × 5².
- (c) 18 — The error intervals are 35 ≤ distance < 45 and 2.5 ≤ time < 3.5. Average speed is distance ÷ time, and to make a quotient as large as possible you divide the largest possible numerator by the SMALLEST possible denominator: 45 ÷ 2.5 = 18 km/h. Using the upper bound of time as well as the upper bound of distance, 45 ÷ 3.5, gives roughly 12.9 km/h — dividing by a bigger number produces a smaller result, so this actually finds a value smaller than the true maximum. Using the lower bound of distance with the lower bound of time, 35 ÷ 2.5 = 14, mixes up which bound belongs to a maximum calculation. Using the lower bound of distance with the upper bound of time, 35 ÷ 3.5 = 10, is in fact the correct method for the MINIMUM speed, not the maximum.
- (a) £18 — Method: the percentage acts as an operator on the bill, and 15% can be built from 10% and 5%, where 5% is half of 10%. Working: 10% of £120 is £120 ÷ 10 = £12, and 5% is half of that, £6, so the charge is £12 + £6 = £18. Answer: £18. The distractors: £8 comes from reading 15% as one fifteenth and working out £120 ÷ 15 = £8; £12 comes from finding 10% of the bill and stopping there; £138 comes from finding the charge correctly and then giving the new total, £120 + £18, rather than the charge the question asks for.
- (d) 3√5 — Split 45 into a perfect square times a factor: 45 = 9 × 5. Take the square root of each part separately: √45 = √9 × √5 = 3√5, since √9 = 3. Writing the perfect-square factor itself (9) as the coefficient instead of its root would give 9√5 — that trap comes from forgetting the last step, rooting 9. Multiplying 3 and 5 together instead of keeping them as coefficient and radicand gives 15, which throws away the surd entirely. Doubling the correct coefficient by mistake gives 6√5.
- (a) The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre — Method: a measurement should never be written to a finer degree of accuracy than the instrument used can read. Working: the tape is marked in centimetres, so the smallest division Leah can read is 1 cm, which is 0.01 m and two decimal places in metres; writing 7.3157 m claims the length to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, four decimal places, which the markings cannot support. A record of 7.32 m, to the nearest centimetre, is what this tape justifies. Answer: The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre. The distractors: the nearest millimetre contradicts the markings described in the question, which are centimetres, and would still claim more accuracy than the tape offers; the rule that a length in metres must be written to 2 decimal places borrows the habit of writing money to the penny, when the accuracy of a length depends on the instrument; rounding to the nearest metre would throw away accuracy the tape genuinely provides.
- (a) 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6 — Convert all four fractions to a common denominator of 30: 2/3 is 20/30, 3/5 is 18/30, 5/6 is 25/30, and 1/2 is 15/30. Ordering by these numerators, smallest to largest, gives 15/30, 18/30, 20/30, 25/30, which is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6. Ordering by the size of the numerator in the original fractions, 1, 2, 3, 5, rather than converting to a common denominator, gives the wrong order 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/6, because it ignores that the denominators are different. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 5/6, 2/3, 3/5, 1/2. Using the rule "the bigger the denominator, the smaller the fraction" to place the last two, so that 5/6 is put below 2/3 because 6 is bigger than 3, gives 1/2, 3/5, 5/6, 2/3 — that rule only holds when the numerators are the same, and here 20/30 really is smaller than 25/30. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6.
- (d) £800 — Rounding 38.7 to 1 significant figure gives 40, and rounding 21.40 to 1 significant figure gives 20. Multiplying the rounded values gives an estimate of 40 × 20 = £800. Rounding 21.40 to the nearest whole number instead of to 1 significant figure gives 21, and 40 × 21 = £840, one place value too fine for the price. Adding the rounded values instead of multiplying them gives 40 + 20 = £60. Rounding both numbers to 2 significant figures instead of 1, giving 39 and 21, produces 39 × 21 = £819.
- (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.
- (d) 1 × 10⁷ seconds — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then divide; dividing numbers in standard form means dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices. Working: 3.1 × 10¹⁵ rounds to 3 × 10¹⁵ and 2.998 × 10⁸ rounds to 3 × 10⁸; 3 ÷ 3 = 1 for the coefficients, and 15 − 8 = 7 for the indices. Answer: about 1 × 10⁷ seconds. The distractors: 3 × 10⁷ seconds comes from subtracting the indices correctly but leaving the coefficient as 3 instead of dividing 3 by 3; 1 × 10⁻⁷ seconds comes from dividing the speed by the distance instead of the distance by the speed; 9 × 10²³ seconds comes from multiplying the two quantities instead of dividing them, since 3 × 3 = 9 and 15 + 8 = 23.
- (b) £45 — Since 2/3 of the amount is £30, one third is £30 ÷ 2 = £15, and the whole amount is three thirds: £15 × 3 = £45. Applying the fraction forwards to £30 instead of reversing it, £30 × 2/3 = £20, treats the given amount as the whole rather than as two thirds of it. Finding one third correctly as £15 but forgetting to multiply by 3 to get the whole amount leaves £15 as the final answer. Reading £30 as one third of the amount rather than as two thirds, and so multiplying straight by 3, gives £30 × 3 = £90.
- (c) Exactly 1: the subtraction has no rounding at any step. — 10x − x removes the recurring part completely, because the digits after the decimal point in 10x and in x are identical from the tenths place onward, so they cancel exactly: 9.999... − 0.999... = 9.000... = 9. Nothing was rounded to reach 9x = 9, so x = 1 is an exact equality, not an approximation, and the statement that the value is exactly 1, with no rounding at any step, is the correct one. Calling it only approximately 1, on the ground that a recurring decimal can never reach a whole number, misunderstands what the subtraction has just shown: the recurring tail cancels completely, leaving no gap to approximate away. Claiming the method only works because the recurring digit is 9 is also wrong — the same subtraction cancels the recurring part for any repeating digit, not just 9; it is the choice of multiplier (10, matching the one-digit repeat) that makes the cancellation exact, not the digit itself. Saying 10x minus x gives 8.999... rather than 9 misreads the subtraction: 9.999... − 0.999... has no digit to borrow from, since every decimal digit in the two numbers matches, so the result is exactly 9, not 8.999... .
- (a) 7 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index first, then the multiplication, then the subtraction. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, then 3 × 4 = 12, and finally 12 − 5 = 7. Answer: 7. The distractors: −17 comes from squaring only the 2 and keeping the minus sign, giving 3 × (−4) = −12 and then −12 − 5 = −17; 31 comes from multiplying before applying the index, giving (3 × (−2))² = (−6)² = 36 and then 36 − 5 = 31; −3 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the multiplication, giving 3 × (4 − 5) = 3 × (−1) = −3.
- (a) They cannot both be describing the same path — Jon's measurement means the true length, l, satisfies 11.5 m ≤ l < 12.5 m. Mia's measurement means the true length satisfies 12.55 m ≤ l < 12.65 m. These two ranges do not overlap, so the two measurements cannot both be describing the same path. 'They must both be describing the same path' ignores that the two ranges do not overlap at all. 'Jon's measurement must be wrong' wrongly assumes Jon is the one at fault, when the mismatch does not show which measurement, if either, is wrong. 'Mia's measurement must be wrong' makes the same unjustified assumption in the other direction.
- (a) 14 — Multiply both numbers by 10 to clear the decimals: 8.4 becomes 84 and 0.6 becomes 6. Then divide: 84 ÷ 6 = 14, so 14 complete pieces can be cut. Scaling only the divisor by 10 and leaving the dividend as 8.4 gives 8.4 ÷ 6 = 1.4, which rounds down to 1 complete piece — the dividend was never converted. Scaling only the dividend by 10 and leaving the divisor as 0.6 gives 84 ÷ 0.6 = 140. Rounding the divisor from 0.6 to 0.7 before dividing, trading accuracy for a rounder number, gives 8.4 ÷ 0.7 = 12. So 14 complete pieces of ribbon can be cut.
- (d) 3/10 — Total parts = 7 + 3 = 10. Gold beads are 3 of those 10 parts, so the fraction is 3/10. 7/10 comes from finding the fraction of red beads instead of gold beads. 7/3 comes from writing the ratio itself as a fraction, without adding the parts to find the total. 3/7 comes from comparing gold beads with red beads instead of with the total number of beads.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.