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.
Number worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- 1.Work out (−3) × 4 + 2 × (−5)
- 2.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.
- 3.A charity shop buys a coat for £24 and sells it for a profit that is 3/8 of the buying price. Work out the selling price.
- 4.Work out the value of 2⁻⁴
- 5.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.
- 6.A café offers sandwiches with one filling from 5 choices and one type of bread from 4 choices. Cheese and mustard, which is one of the 5 fillings, is not available on gluten-free bread, which is one of the 4 breads. Work out how many different sandwiches are possible.
- 7.Simplify √45.
- 8.A flight departs at 21:35 and lands at 06:10 the following morning. Work out the total flight time.
- 9.Find the missing number: ▢ ÷ 15 = 24
- 10.The density of a metal is calculated using density = mass ÷ volume. A sample has a mass of 156 g, correct to the nearest gram, and a volume of 12 cm³, correct to the nearest cm³. Work out the minimum possible density, in g/cm³.
- 11.Hannah works out 3.1 × 19.6 on her calculator and writes down 6.076. Work out an estimate for 3.1 × 19.6, by rounding each number to 1 significant figure.
- 12.Chloe wants to work out 3 1/4 − 1 2/3. She converts both mixed numbers to twelfths, then subtracts the whole numbers and the fraction parts separately, without checking whether she needs to exchange first. Work out the correct value of 3 1/4 − 1 2/3, giving your answer as a mixed number in its simplest form.
- 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.The number 24 can be written as 2³ × 3, and the number 60 can be written as 2² × 3 × 5. Work out the lowest common multiple of 24 and 60.
- 15.A number, n, is a multiple of both 6 and 9. Work out the smallest possible value of n that is greater than 20.
Answer key
- (a) −22 — Method: both multiplications are carried out before the addition, and a positive multiplied by a negative is negative. Working: (−3) × 4 = −12 and 2 × (−5) = −10, so the calculation becomes −12 + (−10) = −22. Answer: −22. The distractors: 22 comes from ignoring the minus signs and working out 3 × 4 + 2 × 5 = 22; 50 comes from working from left to right with no priority at all, giving −12 + 2 = −10 and then −10 × (−5) = 50; −2 comes from taking 2 × (−5) as +10, so that −12 + 10 = −2.
- (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.
- (d) £33.00 — The profit is 3/8 of £24 = (£24 ÷ 8) × 3 = £3 × 3 = £9.00. Selling price = £24 + £9.00 = £33.00. A candidate who gives the profit instead of the selling price gets £9.00. A candidate who subtracts the profit instead of adding it gets £24 − £9 = £15.00. A candidate who works out one eighth of £24 and adds that on, forgetting to multiply by the numerator 3, gets £24 + £3 = £27.00.
- (d) 1/16 — Method: a negative index means the reciprocal of the power, so 2⁻⁴ is 1 divided by 2⁴. Working: 2⁴ = 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16, so the value is 1/16. Answer: 1/16. The distractors: −16 comes from reading the negative index as a minus sign on the result; 16 comes from ignoring the minus sign and working out 2⁴; 1/8 comes from multiplying the base by the index, 2 × 4, and writing 1 over that product.
- (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.
- (c) 19 — Without any restriction there would be 5 × 4 = 20 different sandwiches. The restriction removes exactly one combination, cheese and mustard on gluten-free bread, so subtract 1: 20 − 1 = 19. 20 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 15 comes from removing the gluten-free bread altogether, as if none of the fillings were available on it, 5 × 3 = 15. 16 comes from removing the cheese and mustard filling completely, as if it were not available on any bread, 4 × 4 = 16.
- (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.
- (c) 8 hours 35 minutes — From 21:35 to midnight is 2 hours 25 minutes, and from midnight to 06:10 is a further 6 hours 10 minutes, giving a total of 8 hours 35 minutes. Misreading the departure time as 22:35 instead of 21:35 loses an hour from the calculation and gives 7 hours 35 minutes. Misreading the departure time as 20:35 instead of 21:35 gains an hour and gives 9 hours 35 minutes. Subtracting the times as if both fell on the same day, without crossing midnight, gives 15 hours 25 minutes.
- (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.
- (c) 12.44 — The error intervals are 155.5 ≤ mass < 156.5 and 11.5 ≤ volume < 12.5. To make a quotient as small as possible, use the SMALLEST possible numerator together with the LARGEST possible denominator: 155.5 ÷ 12.5 = 12.44 g/cm³. Using the lower bound for both mass and volume, 155.5 ÷ 11.5 ≈ 13.52, forgets that dividing by a smaller number makes the result bigger, not smaller — that pairing does not give a minimum at all. Dividing the two given rounded values directly, 156 ÷ 12 = 13, ignores that both measurements have their own error interval. Using the upper bound of mass with the upper bound of volume, 156.5 ÷ 12.5 = 12.52, takes both bounds the same way round; it is neither the minimum nor the maximum, since the maximum needs the largest mass with the smallest volume, 156.5 ÷ 11.5 ≈ 13.61.
- (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
- (d) 1 7/12 — Method: convert both mixed numbers to improper fractions with a common denominator, then subtract. Working: 3 1/4 = 39/12 and 1 2/3 = 20/12, so 39/12 − 20/12 = 19/12 = 1 7/12. Answer: 1 7/12. Chloe's method, subtracting whole numbers (3−1=2) and fraction parts (2/3−1/4=5/12) separately without exchanging, gives 2 5/12. 1 3/4 comes from converting 2/3 to twelfths incorrectly as 6/12 instead of 8/12, then subtracting. 8 comes from converting both mixed numbers to improper fractions correctly (13/4 and 5/3) but then subtracting numerators and denominators separately: (13−5)/(4−3) = 8/1.
- (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) 120 — For the lowest common multiple, take each prime that appears in either factorisation, raised to the higher power. In 2³ × 3 and 2² × 3 × 5, the prime 2 appears with power 3 in one and power 2 in the other — take the higher, 2³; the prime 3 appears with the same power in both, 3¹; and the prime 5 appears only in the second factorisation, so use 5¹. Multiplying these, 2³ × 3 × 5, gives 120. Taking the lower power of 2 instead of the higher, and leaving out 5 altogether, gives the highest common factor, 12, instead. Multiplying the two original numbers together, 24 × 60, gives 1440, which double-counts every shared prime factor. Assuming the lowest common multiple is simply the larger of the two numbers gives 60, but 60 is not a multiple of 24 — 60 ÷ 24 does not divide exactly. So the lowest common multiple of 24 and 60 is 120.
- (a) 36 — Method: find the lowest common multiple of 6 and 9, then move up the list of common multiples until one is greater than 20. Working: the common multiples of 6 and 9 are 18, 36, 54 …. 18 is not greater than 20, so the next one, 36, is the smallest value of n that is greater than 20. 18 is the lowest common multiple itself, but it fails the 'greater than 20' condition. 54 is the common multiple after 36, one step too far. 27 is a multiple of 9 but not of 6, since 27 ÷ 6 is not a whole number. Answer: 36.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.