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.
Calculator
Answer key: Number worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (a) 8,350 — Rounding to the nearest 100 means the true number can be up to half of 100, which is 50, below the recorded figure before it would round down to a lower hundred. The smallest possible number is therefore 8,400 − 50 = 8,350. Adding 50 instead of subtracting it gives 8,450, which is the upper end of the interval rather than the smallest value, and 8,450 is not itself possible because it would round up to 8,500. Subtracting a whole 100 instead of half of it gives 8,300, going too far below the recorded value. Subtracting 10 instead of half of the rounding unit gives 8,390, treating the rounding unit as 100 but the tolerance as only 10.
- (a) 17 — Method: work out each power separately, then combine them as the question asks. Working: $2^3 = 8$ and $3^2 = 9$, and 8 + 9 = 17. 72 comes from working out 8 × 9 = 72, multiplying the two powers instead of adding them. 12 comes from misreading the powers as repeated multiplication of the base by the index, 2 × 3 + 3 × 2 = 6 + 6 = 12. −1 comes from working out 8 − 9 = −1, subtracting the powers instead of adding them. Answer: 17.
- (a) £177.60 — Total raised = 240 × £1.85 = £444.00. The hospital receives 40% of this: £444.00 × 0.4 = £177.60. A candidate who works out the remaining 60% instead of the 40% given away gets £266.40. A candidate who forgets to find the percentage and gives the full total gets £444.00. A candidate who halves 40% by mistake and uses 20% gets £88.80.
- (a) The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre — Method: a measurement should never be written to a finer degree of accuracy than the instrument used can read. Working: the tape is marked in centimetres, so the smallest division Leah can read is 1 cm, which is 0.01 m and two decimal places in metres; writing 7.3157 m claims the length to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, four decimal places, which the markings cannot support. A record of 7.32 m, to the nearest centimetre, is what this tape justifies. Answer: The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre. The distractors: the nearest millimetre contradicts the markings described in the question, which are centimetres, and would still claim more accuracy than the tape offers; the rule that a length in metres must be written to 2 decimal places borrows the habit of writing money to the penny, when the accuracy of a length depends on the instrument; rounding to the nearest metre would throw away accuracy the tape genuinely provides.
- (d) 27/80 — Method: write the total as a fraction of a litre, then divide by the number of glasses. Working: 1.35 = 27/20, so each glass holds 27/20 ÷ 4 = 27/80 of a litre. Answer: 27/80. 27/20 comes from converting the total correctly to a fraction but forgetting to divide by the number of glasses. 27/5 comes from multiplying the total by 4 instead of dividing. 17/50 comes from rounding 1.35 ÷ 4 to 0.34 before converting to a fraction.
- (a) 1,850 — Method: find the error interval, then check which value falls outside it. Working: half of 100 is 50, so the actual number of visitors, v, satisfies 1,750 ≤ v < 1,850. 1,850 sits exactly on the excluded upper boundary, since a value of 1,850 would round to 1,900, not 1,800. Answer: 1,850. (1,750 is a genuine possible value — it sits at the included lower boundary. 1,799 is a genuine possible value, just below the upper boundary. 1,760 is a genuine possible value, well inside the interval.)
- (a) 8 × 10³ — Method: divide the capacity of the card by the size of one photograph, dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices, then bring the coefficient back into the range 1 to 10. Working: 3.2 ÷ 4 = 0.8 and 10 − 6 = 4, which gives 0.8 × 10⁴; a coefficient of 0.8 is smaller than 1, so the decimal point moves one place to the right and the index falls by 1. Answer: 8 × 10³. The distractors: 8 × 10⁴ comes from correcting 0.8 to 8 without reducing the index, which makes the answer ten times too large; 1.28 × 10¹⁷ comes from multiplying the two numbers instead of dividing them, since 3.2 × 4 = 12.8 and 10 + 6 = 16; 8 × 10¹⁵ comes from dividing the coefficients but adding the indices instead of subtracting them.
- (d) 1.2 × 10⁵ — 4 × 3 = 12, and 3 + 1 = 4, giving 12 × 10⁴ — but 12 is not between 1 and 10, so this must be rewritten as 1.2 × 10⁵. Stopping at 12 × 10⁴ without rewriting it leaves the coefficient out of range. Rewriting 12 as 1.2 but leaving the exponent at 4 instead of increasing it to 5 gives 1.2 × 10⁴, which is ten times too small. Adding the coefficients instead of multiplying them gives 4 + 3 = 7, so 7 × 10⁴.
- (d) 10 — Method: list the pairs systematically, taking each sweet in turn and pairing it only with the sweets that come after it, so that no pair is written down twice. Working: numbering the sweets 1 to 5, the first sweet pairs with 4 others, the second pairs with 3 sweets that come after it, the third with 2 and the fourth with 1, so the total is 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 20 comes from working out 5 × 4 and never halving, which counts each pair twice, once in each order; 25 comes from working out 5 × 5, which allows the same sweet to be chosen twice; 9 comes from adding the 5 choices and the 4 remaining choices instead of combining them as a selection of two.
- (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
- (c) 45 — Method: count the ordered pairings with the product rule and then correct for the fact that a game between two players is the same game whichever player it is counted from. Working: each of the 10 players meets 9 opponents, so 10 × 9 = 90 pairings are counted; every game has been counted twice, once from each player's side, so the number of games is 90 ÷ 2 = 45. Answer: 45. The distractors: 90 comes from stopping at 10 × 9 and never halving, so that each game is counted once for each of its two players; 55 comes from adding 10 + 9 + 8 + ... + 1 instead of 9 + 8 + ... + 1, which counts one extra round of games; 20 comes from multiplying the 10 players by the 2 players in each game rather than pairing the players with one another.
- (c) 22 — Without restriction there are 6 × 4 = 24 combinations. Two specific combinations are not available, so subtract 2: 24 − 2 = 22. 24 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 23 comes from subtracting only 1 of the 2 excluded combinations. 18 comes from removing the whole sport trim level, 6 × 3 = 18, instead of removing just the two excluded combinations.
- (c) £47.00 — First apply the 20% reduction: £65 × 0.8 = £52.00. Then take off the further £5: £52.00 − £5 = £47.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £65 − £20 − £5, gives £40.00. Applying the 20% reduction correctly but forgetting to take off the extra £5 leaves £52.00. Taking off the £5 first and then applying the 20% reduction to the smaller amount, (£65 − £5) × 0.8, gives £48.00.
- (b) £45 — Since 2/3 of the amount is £30, one third is £30 ÷ 2 = £15, and the whole amount is three thirds: £15 × 3 = £45. Applying the fraction forwards to £30 instead of reversing it, £30 × 2/3 = £20, treats the given amount as the whole rather than as two thirds of it. Finding one third correctly as £15 but forgetting to multiply by 3 to get the whole amount leaves £15 as the final answer. Reading £30 as one third of the amount rather than as two thirds, and so multiplying straight by 3, gives £30 × 3 = £90.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.