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.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?
- 2.Write 60 as a product of its prime factors, using index notation.
- 3.Given that 5³ = 125 and 6³ = 216, use a midpoint test to estimate ∛130 to 1 decimal place.
- 4.Write 5,000,000 in standard form.
- 5.Simplify 5⁻² × 5⁴, giving your answer as a single power of 5.
- 6.Write these three numbers in order, starting with the smallest: 7/20, 0.3, 32%
- 7.During one night on a mountain, four hikers each recorded the temperature they felt: Ben −6 °C, Priya −2 °C, Sam −9 °C, Alex 1 °C. Work out the difference between the coldest and the warmest of these four temperatures.
- 8.Work out 3 + 4 × (−2).
- 9.Work out 3 1/5 + 1 2/3. Give your answer as a mixed number in its simplest form.
- 10.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.
- 11.A charity raises 8 × 10⁶ pounds. This total is shared equally among 2 × 10² local projects. Work out how much each project receives, in standard form.
- 12.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?
- 13.Work out √3 × √12, giving your answer as an integer.
- 14.Write 12 as a product of its prime factors.
- 15.Work out an estimate for 8,900 ÷ 29, by rounding each number to 1 significant figure.
Answer key
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 5.1 — ∛130 lies between 5 and 6, since 125 < 130 < 216, and closer to 5 because 130 is much nearer 125 than 216. To pin down the first decimal place, test the midpoint of the tenth, 5.05: 5.05³ = 5.05 × 5.05 × 5.05 ≈ 128.79. Since 130 is greater than 128.79, ∛130 lies above 5.05, so it rounds to 5.1 rather than 5.0. Rounding down to 5.0, on the assumption that a value close to the lower bound 125 must round down, ignores that 5.05³ is already less than 130. Estimating 5.2 overshoots the true root: 5.2³ = 140.608, which is well above 130, so ∛130 cannot round to 5.2. Taking 6.0, the upper of the two whole numbers the root lies between, ignores that 130 is far nearer to 5³ = 125 than to 6³ = 216, so the root sits just above 5, not just below 6.
- (c) 5 × 10⁶ — Method: standard form is written as A × 10ⁿ, where A is at least 1 and less than 10 and n counts the places the decimal point moves. Working: the digits of 5,000,000 give a coefficient of A = 5, and the decimal point travels from the end of 5,000,000 until it sits just after the 5, a move of 6 places, so n = 6. Answer: 5 × 10⁶. The distractors: 50 × 10⁵ comes from stopping before the coefficient has been brought into range, and 50 is not less than 10, so it is not standard form; 5 × 10⁷ comes from counting the seven digits of 5,000,000 instead of the six places the decimal point moves; 5 × 10⁻⁶ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left, when a negative index belongs to a number smaller than 1.
- (b) 5² — Method: multiplying two powers of the same base adds their indices, and a negative index is added as a negative number. Working: −2 + 4 = 2, so 5⁻² × 5⁴ = 5². Answer: 5². The distractors: 5⁶ comes from adding the sizes of the indices, 2 + 4, and ignoring the minus sign; 5⁻⁸ comes from multiplying the indices, −2 × 4, instead of adding them; 5⁻⁶ comes from subtracting the indices, −2 − 4, as though the powers were being divided.
- (b) 0.3, 32%, 7/20 — Method: convert every number to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale. Working: 7/20 = 0.35, 0.3 stays as 0.3, and 32% = 0.32. Comparing 0.3, 0.32 and 0.35 in size gives the order 0.3, then 0.32, then 0.35. Answer: 0.3, 32%, 7/20. 7/20, 32%, 0.3 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. 0.3, 7/20, 32% swaps 32% and 7/20, treating the fraction 7/20 as smaller even though 7/20 = 0.35 is bigger than 32% = 0.32. 32%, 0.3, 7/20 comes from moving the digits one place too far when converting the percentage, giving 0.032 instead of 0.32, which makes 32% look far smaller than it really is.
- (a) 10 °C — Method: work out the coldest and warmest of the four temperatures, then subtract to find the difference. Working: the coldest temperature is Sam's, −9 °C, and the warmest is Alex's, 1 °C. The difference is 1 − (−9) = 1 + 9 = 10. Answer: 10 °C. 8 °C comes from working out 1 − 9 = −8 and reporting 8, dropping the negative sign on −9 instead of turning the subtraction into an addition. 3 °C comes from comparing the wrong pair, Sam's −9 °C and Ben's −6 °C, instead of the coldest and the warmest: −6 − (−9) = 3. 7 °C comes from comparing Ben's −6 °C with Alex's 1 °C, mistakenly treating Ben's reading as the coldest instead of Sam's.
- (b) −5 — Using the order of operations, work out the multiplication first: 4 × (−2) = −8. Then 3 + (−8) = −5. A candidate who adds before multiplying gets (3 + 4) × (−2) = −14. A candidate who drops the negative sign on the multiplication gets 3 + 4 × 2 = 11. A candidate who works out the multiplication correctly but gives that as the final answer, forgetting to combine it with the 3, gets −8.
- (d) 4 13/15 — Convert to fifteenths: 1/5 is equivalent to 3/15 (multiply by 3/3), and 2/3 is equivalent to 10/15 (multiply by 5/5), so 3 1/5 is equivalent to 3 3/15 and 1 2/3 is equivalent to 1 10/15. Add the whole numbers (3 + 1 = 4) and the fractions (3/15 + 10/15 = 13/15), giving 4 13/15. A candidate who adds the numerators and denominators straight across, treating 1/5 + 2/3 as (1+2)/(5+3), gets a fraction part of 3/8, giving 4 3/8. A candidate who adds the fraction parts correctly but forgets to add the second whole number gets 3 13/15. A candidate who adds the whole numbers but copies the first fraction across without ever adding 2/3 to it gets 4 1/5.
- (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.
- (c) 4 × 10⁴ — 8 ÷ 2 = 4, and 6 − 2 = 4, so each project receives 4 × 10⁴ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 × 2 = 12, so 4 × 10¹². Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 6 + 2 = 8, so 4 × 10⁸. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 8 − 2 = 6, so 6 × 10⁴.
- (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) 6 — Use √a × √b = √(ab): √3 × √12 = √(3 × 12) = √36 = 6. Adding the numbers under the roots instead of multiplying them, 3 + 12 = 15, gives √15 — that comes from applying the rule for adding surds to a multiplication question. Multiplying the two numbers under the roots but then forgetting to take the square root at the end leaves 36. Simplifying only √12 to 2√3 and then dropping the other √3 factor entirely gives 2√3.
- (a) 2² × 3 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime that goes in, until 1 is reached, then write the primes used as a product with indices. Working: 12 ÷ 2 = 6, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 3 ÷ 3 = 1, so the primes used are 2, 2 and 3, which is written as 2² × 3. Answer: 2² × 3. The distractors: 2 × 6 comes from stopping at the first factor pair without splitting the 6, which is not prime; 2 × 3 comes from listing each prime once and losing the repeat, and it multiplies to 6 rather than 12; 2 × 3² puts the index on the wrong prime and multiplies to 18.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.