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.The number 36 can be written as 2² × 3², and the number 84 can be written as 2² × 3 × 7. Work out the highest common factor of 36 and 84.
- 2.Simplify (5² × 2³)³ ÷ (5³ × 2²)²
- 3.Work out the value of .
- 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.Write 0.325 as a fraction in its simplest form.
- 6.Jack buys 3 books, each costing £4.25, and pays with a £20 note. Work out how much change he receives.
- 7.Work out 100 − 4 × 5²
- 8.Work out 5⁰ + 5¹ + 5²
- 9.Which of these numbers rounds to 0.048 when rounded to 2 significant figures?
- 10.The decimal 0.272727... repeats the block 27 for ever. Write 0.27 recurring as a fraction in its simplest form.
- 11.Which statement about the number 91 is correct?
- 12.A recipe for one cake needs 2/3 of a cup of sugar. Priya has 3 1/2 cups of sugar. Work out how many complete cakes she can make.
- 13.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?
- 14.Write 0.875 as a fraction in its simplest form.
- 15.A restaurant adds a service charge of 15% to a bill of £120. Work out the service charge.
Answer key
- (a) 12 — Compare the powers of each prime that appears in both factorisations. In 2² × 3² and 2² × 3 × 7, the prime 2 appears with power 2 in both, and the prime 3 appears with power 2 in one and only power 1 in the other — take the lower power, 3¹. Multiplying the shared primes at their lower powers, 2² × 3, gives 12. Using power 1 for both primes instead of comparing the powers properly, 2 × 3, gives 6, which misses that 2 is common at power 2, not power 1. Multiplying the primes at their higher powers and including 7, which only appears in 84, gives 2² × 3² × 7, which comes to 252 — this is the lowest common multiple, not the highest common factor. Only spotting that 3 is a common prime and overlooking that 2 is common as well gives 3. So the highest common factor of 36 and 84 is 12.
- (b) 2⁵ — Method: a power outside brackets multiplies the index of every factor inside them, and dividing powers of the same base subtracts their indices. Working: (5² × 2³)³ = 5⁶ × 2⁹ and (5³ × 2²)² = 5⁶ × 2⁴. Dividing gives 5⁶⁻⁶ × 2⁹⁻⁴, and since 5⁰ = 1 the whole expression reduces to 2⁵. Answer: 2⁵. The distractors: 2² comes from adding the outside index to each inside index instead of multiplying, which gives 5⁵ × 2⁶ over 5⁵ × 2⁴; 2¹³ comes from adding the indices of 2 when dividing, 9 + 4, instead of subtracting them; 2 comes from applying the outside power to the first factor inside each bracket only, leaving 5⁶ × 2³ over 5⁶ × 2².
- (c) 0.001 — Method: a negative index means 'one over' the positive power, so $10^{-3}$ means one over $10^{3}$. Working: ten cubed is 1000, and one over 1000 is 0.001. 1000 comes from ignoring the negative sign and working out ten cubed instead of its reciprocal. −1000 comes from ignoring what the negative index does to the size, while still writing a negative sign on the large value. −0.001 comes from correctly finding the size, 0.001, but wrongly keeping a negative sign because the index was negative. Answer: 0.001.
- (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) 13/40 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.325 = 325/1000 = 13/40 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 25). Answer: 13/40. 13/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 8/25 comes from rounding 0.325 down to 0.32 before converting. 3/8 comes from recalling the learned conversion 3/8 = 0.375 and matching it to 0.325 because both are three-place decimals beginning with 3, instead of converting the decimal given.
- (c) £7.25 — Find the total cost of the books first: 3 × 4.25 = 12.75, so the books cost £12.75 in total. Subtract this from the £20 note: 20.00 − 12.75 = 7.25, so the change is £7.25. Stopping after finding the cost and not subtracting it from £20 gives £12.75, which is the amount spent, not the change. Borrowing correctly in the pence column but forgetting to reduce the pounds column by 1 gives £8.25 instead of £7.25. Multiplying 3 × 4.25 as 12.25 instead of 12.75, a multiplication slip, makes the change come out £0.50 too high, at £7.75. So Jack receives £7.25 change.
- (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) 31 — Method: work out each power separately, remembering that any non-zero base raised to the power 0 is 1 and a base raised to the power 1 is itself, then add the three values. Working: 5⁰ = 1, 5¹ = 5 and 5² = 25, so the total is 1 + 5 + 25 = 31. Answer: 31. The distractors: 30 comes from taking 5⁰ as 0 instead of 1; 35 comes from taking 5⁰ as 5, treating a zero index as leaving the base unchanged; 125 comes from adding the indices first, as though the three terms were being multiplied, and working out 5³.
- (c) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
- (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.
- (a) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.
- (b) 5 — Method: divide the total amount of sugar by the amount needed for one cake, then round down because a part-used amount of sugar cannot make an extra whole cake. Working: 3 1/2 ÷ 2/3 = 7/2 × 3/2 = 21/4 = 5.25; only 5 complete cakes can be made, since the leftover 0.25 of a portion is not enough for a 6th cake. Answer: 5. 5.25 gives the exact result of the division without rounding down to a whole number of cakes. 7 comes from multiplying 3.5 by 2 and ignoring the need to also divide by 3 as part of dividing by the fraction 2/3. 6 comes from rounding 5.25 up to the nearest whole number instead of down, wrongly assuming a 6th cake could be made from the leftover sugar.
- (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.
- (a) 7/8 — Method: write the decimal over the power of ten that matches the number of digits after the point, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.875 has three digits after the point, so it is 875 thousandths and can be written as 875/1000; the highest common factor of 875 and 1000 is 125, and 875 ÷ 125 = 7 with 1000 ÷ 125 = 8. Answer: 7/8. The distractors: 8/7 comes from cancelling correctly but writing the two parts the wrong way round; 9/10 comes from rounding 0.875 to one decimal place as 0.9 before converting; 7/80 comes from counting four decimal places instead of three and using a denominator of 10000, giving 875/10000.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.