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.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.
- 2.A shop assistant says that 7.2 × 3.9 = 56.16. Work out an estimate for 7.2 × 3.9, by rounding each number to the nearest whole number, to show that the assistant’s answer cannot be correct.
- 3.Work out how many factors 36 has.
- 4.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.
- 5.The recurring decimal 0.181818... can be written as 0.18 recurring, where both digits repeat forever. Let x = 0.18 recurring. Work out x as a fraction in its simplest form.
- 6.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?
- 7.Simplify ⁴√(16a⁸b¹²)
- 8.Three-digit numbers are made using the digits 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9. No digit may be used twice in the same number. Work out how many of these three-digit numbers are odd.
- 9.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.
- 10.Work out ⁴√16
- 11.Write 90 as a product of its prime factors.
- 12.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.
- 13.A cake recipe needs 3/4 of a kilogram of sugar. Aisha wants to make half the recipe. Work out how much sugar she needs, giving your answer as a fraction of a kilogram in its simplest form.
- 14.Write 60 as a product of its prime factors, using index notation.
- 15.Write these three numbers in order, starting with the smallest: 3/5, 0.55, 58%
Answer key
- (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.
- (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
- (d) 9 — List all the factors of 36 in pairs that multiply to give 36: 1 × 36, 2 × 18, 3 × 12, 4 × 9, and 6 × 6. This gives the factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 36 — nine factors in total, with 6 counted only once even though it appears in a pair with itself. Forgetting that 36 is itself a factor of 36 and leaving it off the list gives 8. Counting the number of factor pairs, five of them, rather than the number of individual factors gives 5. Treating the repeated pair 6 × 6 as two separate factors, 6 and 6 again, gives 10 instead of 9. So 36 has 9 factors.
- (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) 2/11 — Let x = 0.18 recurring, so x = 0.181818... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 18.181818... . Subtracting the original x removes the recurring part, because the digits line up exactly: 100x − x = 18.181818... − 0.181818... = 18, so 99x = 18, giving x = 18/99 = 2/11. Treating the decimal as if it terminated at two places gives 18/100 = 9/50, which is only 0.18 and drops the repeating part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x — using 100x − 10x = 90x = 18 — is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit repeating block, and gives x = 18/90 = 1/5. Making an arithmetic slip in the numerator, 18 − 1 = 17 instead of 18, gives 17/99.
- (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) 2a²b³ — Method: a fourth root applies to every factor inside it, and taking the fourth root of a power divides that power's index by 4. Working: 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16, so the fourth root of 16 is 2; 8 ÷ 4 = 2 gives a², and 12 ÷ 4 = 3 gives b³. Answer: 2a²b³. The distractors: 2a⁴b⁶ comes from halving both indices, treating every root sign as a square root; 4a²b³ comes from taking the square root of 16 while dividing the letters' indices by 4; 2a²b⁴ comes from dividing b's index by 3 instead of by 4, as though b sat under a cube root.
- (a) 40 — Method: a number is odd exactly when its units digit is odd, so the restricted position is filled first and the two free positions are then filled from the digits that are left, multiplying the number of choices at each stage. Working: of the six digits only 3 and 9 are odd, so there are 2 choices for the units digit; once that digit has been used, 5 digits remain for the hundreds position and then 4 remain for the tens position, so the count is 2 × 5 × 4 = 40. Answer: 40. The distractors: 120 comes from ignoring the word odd altogether and counting every three-digit number that can be made from the six digits, 6 × 5 × 4; 60 comes from filling the hundreds and tens positions first, 6 then 5, and only then allowing 2 odd digits for the units position, which overcounts because one of 3 and 9 may already have been used, giving 6 × 5 × 2; 72 comes from restricting the units digit to 3 or 9 correctly but overlooking the condition that no digit may be used twice, so all six digits are still counted as available for each of the other two positions, giving 2 × 6 × 6.
- (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) 2 — Method: a fourth root undoes raising to the power 4, so look for the number that gives 16 when it is multiplied by itself four times. Working: 2 × 2 = 4, 4 × 2 = 8 and 8 × 2 = 16, which uses four factors of 2. Answer: 2. The distractors: 4 comes from taking the square root of 16 instead of its fourth root; 8 comes from halving 16, treating any root as a halving; 64 comes from multiplying 16 by 4 instead of taking a fourth root.
- (a) 2 × 3² × 5 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number until only prime factors remain. Working: 90 ÷ 2 = 45, 45 ÷ 3 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 90 = 2 × 3 × 3 × 5, written as 2 × 3² × 5. 2 × 3 × 15 stops before the 15 is broken down into 3 × 5, so it is not fully factorised. 3 × 3 × 10 stops before the 10 is broken down into 2 × 5. 2 × 45 stops after only one division. Answer: 2 × 3² × 5.
- (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.
- (d) 3/8 — Method: making half the recipe means dividing the quantity of sugar by 2. Working: 3/4 ÷ 2 = 3/8. Answer: 3/8. 3/2 comes from multiplying by 2 instead of dividing, as if doubling the recipe. 5/4 comes from adding 1/2 to 3/4 instead of halving it, confusing "half of" with "plus a half". 3/4 comes from leaving the amount unchanged, forgetting to halve it for the smaller recipe.
- (b) 2² × 3 × 5 — Repeatedly divide 60 by prime numbers: 60 ÷ 2 = 30, 30 ÷ 2 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is itself prime. So 60 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 5, which in index notation is 2² × 3 × 5. Stopping the factor tree after only three divisions and writing 2 × 3 × 5 misses that the 2 divides in twice, and gives only 30, not 60. Squaring the 3 as well as the 2 gives 2² × 3² × 5, which comes to 180, far too big. Squaring the 5 instead of the 2 gives 2 × 3 × 5², which comes to 150, also too big. So 60 = 2² × 3 × 5.
- (a) 0.55, 58%, 3/5 — Converting all three to decimals: 3/5 = 0.6, 0.55 stays as 0.55, and 58% = 0.58. In order from smallest to largest, this is 0.55, then 58%, then 3/5. Writing the numbers in the reverse order, largest to smallest, gives 3/5, 58%, 0.55. Misconverting 3/5 as 0.5 instead of 0.6 makes it appear smaller than both other values, giving the order 3/5, 0.55, 58%. Misconverting 58% as 0.058 instead of 0.58, by moving the decimal point two extra places, makes it appear smallest of the three, giving the order 58%, 0.55, 3/5.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.