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.Without using a calculator, estimate the value of √70 × ∛65, giving your answer to 1 significant figure.
- 2.Work out an estimate for 8,900 ÷ 29, by rounding each number to 1 significant figure.
- 3.A triangle has a base of 8 cm and a perpendicular height of 5 cm, each correct to the nearest centimetre. Work out the upper bound of the area.
- 4.Amelia estimates 48 × 21 by working out 50 × 20 = 1,000. Work out whether her estimate is an under-estimate or an over-estimate, and by how much.
- 5.In a school long jump competition Priya's jump is recorded as 3.8 m and Nadia's jump is recorded as 3.9 m, each correct to the nearest 0.1 m. Priya says she may have jumped further than Nadia. Decide whether Priya is right, and give a reason for your answer.
- 6.Sam compares 0.6 and 5/8 by comparing the digit 6 with the digit 5, and says that 0.6 is the larger number. Convert 5/8 to a decimal to find the correct larger value.
- 7.A digital timer truncates every time to 1 decimal place. It shows a swimmer's time for one length as 12.3 seconds. Using t for the swimmer's actual time in seconds, write down the error interval for t.
- 8.Write these decimals in order, starting with the smallest: 0.6, 0.55, 0.601, 0.5, 0.56
- 9.n is a whole number and 2 ≤ n < 6. Write down all the possible values of n.
- 10.A three-digit code is made using the digits 1, 2 and 3, and each digit may be used more than once. Work out how many different three-digit codes can be made.
- 11.A set of kitchen scales displays the mass of a bag of sugar as 0.63 recurring kilograms, meaning 0.636363... kg with the block '63' repeating forever. Convert this mass to a fraction of a kilogram, then work out the mass in grams, giving your answer to the nearest gram.
- 12.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?
- 13.A company sells 4 × 10³ items per day, each priced at £2.50. It operates for 3 × 10² days a year. Work out the company's total revenue for the year. Give your answer in standard form.
- 14.£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.
- 15.An allotment is divided into two plots in the ratio 2:3. The larger plot has an area of 18 m². Work out the fraction of the total area taken up by the smaller plot.
Answer key
- (b) 30 — 70 is close to the perfect square 64, so √70 ≈ 8. 65 is close to the perfect cube 64, so ∛65 ≈ 4. Multiplying these estimates: 8 × 4 = 32, which rounds to 30 to 1 significant figure. Estimating ∛65 as 5 instead of 4, perhaps by confusing it with the nearby cube 125 = 5³ rather than the much closer 64 = 4³, and then multiplying by 8, gives 8 × 5 = 40. Adding the two estimates instead of multiplying them, 8 + 4 = 12, rounds to 10 to 1 significant figure. Rounding both estimates up to the next whole number using the wrong nearby power for each, taking √70 as 9 and ∛65 as 5, gives 9 × 5 = 45, which rounds to 50 to 1 significant figure.
- (a) 300 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 8,900 rounds to 9,000 and 29 rounds to 30; cancelling a zero from each gives 900 ÷ 3. Answer: 300. The distractors: 450 comes from rounding 29 down to 20 instead of to the nearest ten, giving 9,000 ÷ 20; 3,000 comes from rounding 29 to 3 rather than to 30, a place-value slip that divides by a number ten times too small; 307 is the exact quotient rounded to the nearest whole number, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
- (c) 23.375 — The error intervals are 7.5 ≤ base < 8.5 and 4.5 ≤ height < 5.5. The upper bound of the area uses the upper bound of both the base and the height, then halves the product: 8.5 × 5.5 ÷ 2 = 23.375 cm². Using the lower bound of both dimensions instead, 7.5 × 4.5 ÷ 2 = 16.875, gives the lower bound of the area rather than the upper one. Multiplying the two upper bounds together but forgetting to halve for the triangle formula, 8.5 × 5.5 = 46.750, treats the triangle as if it were a rectangle. Using the given values directly without applying any bound at all, 8 × 5 ÷ 2 = 20.000, ignores that each rounded measurement has its own range of possible values.
- (c) An under-estimate, by 8 — Method: work out the exact product, then compare it with the estimate; an estimate that is smaller than the exact value is an under-estimate, and the difference between them is the size of the error. Working: 48 × 21 = 48 × 20 + 48 = 960 + 48 = 1,008, and 1,008 − 1,000 = 8, so the estimate falls short. Answer: an under-estimate, by 8. The distractors: an over-estimate by 8 has the size of the error right but the direction wrong, and comes from assuming that rounding 48 up to 50 must push the estimate above the exact value, without allowing for 21 being rounded down; an over-estimate by 19 comes from working out 48 × 21 as 48 × 20 + 21 = 981, adding a 21 where another 48 belongs; the claim that the estimate is exactly right comes from arguing that one number was rounded up and the other down, so the two changes must cancel.
- (b) No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap — Method: each recorded jump stands for the lengths within half of 0.1 m, that is 0.05 m, of the figure recorded, and Priya is right only if the two ranges overlap. Working: Priya's jump is at least 3.8 − 0.05 = 3.75 m and below 3.85 m, because a jump of 3.85 m would have been recorded as 3.9 m; Nadia's jump is at least 3.85 m and below 3.9 + 0.05 = 3.95 m. Every length Priya could have jumped is below 3.85 m and every length Nadia could have jumped is at least 3.85 m, so Nadia jumped further whatever the exact lengths were. Answer: No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap. The distractors: the reason that a recorded jump is exactly the length jumped reaches the same verdict by treating a rounded record as exact, which is the idea this question tests; both jumps being 3.85 m would put 3.85 m inside Priya's range, when a jump of that length is recorded as 3.9 m; Priya jumping up to 3.9 m goes a whole 0.1 m above her record instead of half of it.
- (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
- (c) 12.3 ≤ t < 12.4 — Method: truncating cuts the later digits off instead of rounding them, so nothing is ever pushed upwards. The displayed value is therefore the smallest the time can be, and the time can run up to, but not reach, the next value the display can show. Working: the display reads 12.3, so the actual time is at least 12.3 seconds; as soon as the time reaches 12.3 + 0.1 = 12.4 seconds the display would read 12.4, so 12.4 is not included. Answer: 12.3 ≤ t < 12.4. The distractors: 12.25 ≤ t < 12.35 is the interval for a time rounded to 1 decimal place, and this display does not round; 12.3 < t ≤ 12.4 excludes the one value the display certainly allows and includes the one it rules out; 12.3 ≤ t ≤ 12.4 treats 12.4 seconds as possible, but at 12.4 seconds the display would no longer read 12.3.
- (a) 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601 — Compare the decimals by giving them all the same number of decimal places first: 0.600, 0.550, 0.601, 0.500, 0.560. Ordering these from smallest to largest gives 0.500, 0.550, 0.560, 0.600, 0.601, which is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601. Comparing the digits as though they were whole numbers, reading 0.601 as "601" and 0.5 as "5", without padding to the same number of decimal places, gives the wrong order 0.5, 0.6, 0.55, 0.56, 0.601, because it ignores the place value of each digit. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 0.601, 0.6, 0.56, 0.55, 0.5. Misreading the close values 0.55 and 0.56 and swapping them gives 0.5, 0.56, 0.55, 0.6, 0.601. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601.
- (a) 2, 3, 4, 5 — Method: work out which whole numbers satisfy both parts of the inequality. Working: n ≥ 2 means n can be 2 or more; n < 6 means n must be less than 6, so 6 itself is not included. The whole numbers that fit both conditions are 2, 3, 4 and 5. Answer: 2, 3, 4, 5. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 treats < 6 as ≤ 6 and wrongly includes 6. 3, 4, 5 treats ≥ 2 as > 2 and wrongly leaves out 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 wrongly includes 1, which does not satisfy n ≥ 2.
- (c) 27 — Each of the 3 digits can be chosen independently for each of the 3 positions, so multiply: 3 × 3 × 3 = 27. 9 comes from multiplying only two of the three positions, 3 × 3, and forgetting the third. 6 comes from working out 3 × 2 × 1 = 6, which counts codes where digits do not repeat, but the question allows repeated digits. 3 comes from considering only one digit position.
- (d) 636 g — Let x = 0.636363... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 63.636363... . Subtracting removes the recurring part exactly: 100x − x = 63.636363... − 0.636363... = 63, so 99x = 63, giving x = 63/99 = 7/11 kg. Converting to grams: 7/11 × 1000 = 7000/11 = 636.3636... g, which rounds to 636 g. Treating the decimal as if it terminated, writing 0.63 as 63/100 kg, gives 630 g when multiplied by 1000 — this drops the recurring part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x, using 100x − 10x = 90x = 63, is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit block, giving x = 63/90 = 7/10 kg, which is 700 g. A numerator slip in the subtraction, 63 − 1 = 62 instead of 63, gives x = 62/99 kg, which is 62000/99 = 626.26... g, rounding to 626 g.
- (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.
- (c) 3 × 10⁶ — Daily revenue = (4 × 10³) × 2.5 = 1 × 10⁴ (£10,000). Multiplying by the number of days, (3 × 10²), gives annual revenue = (1 × 10⁴) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁶ (£3,000,000). A candidate who forgot to multiply by the price and just multiplied the number of items by the number of days worked out (4 × 10³) × (3 × 10²) = 1.2 × 10⁶. A candidate who added the number of days to the daily revenue instead of multiplying worked out 1 × 10⁴ + 3 × 10² = 1.03 × 10⁴. A candidate who misread £2.50 as £25 worked out a daily revenue of (4 × 10³) × 25 = 1 × 10⁵, giving an annual total of (1 × 10⁵) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁷.
- (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) 2/5 — The ratio 2:3 has 2 + 3 = 5 parts in total, and the larger plot is 3 of those parts. Since the larger plot is 18 m², each part is 18 ÷ 3 = 6 m², so the total area is 5 × 6 = 30 m² and the smaller plot is 2 × 6 = 12 m². The fraction of the total area taken up by the smaller plot is 12/30, which simplifies to 2/5. Giving the fraction for the larger plot instead of the smaller one gives 3/5. Comparing the smaller plot to the larger plot instead of to the total area gives 2/3. Assuming the two plots split the area evenly, ignoring the given ratio altogether, gives 1/2.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.