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
- (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.
- (d) £50.00 — The sale price is 85% of the original, so the original price = £42.50 ÷ 0.85 = £50.00. 15% of £42.50 is £6.375. A candidate who finds 15% of £42.50 and subtracts it from the sale price gets £42.50 − £6.375 = £36.125, which is £36.13 to the nearest penny. A candidate who adds 15% of £42.50 instead of reversing the decrease gets £42.50 + £6.375 = £48.875, which is £48.88 to the nearest penny. A candidate who divides by 0.15 instead of 0.85 gets £283.33.
- (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) 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) 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.
- (b) 3 — Method: list all valid two-digit numbers that can be made without starting with 0, then keep only the ones that are multiples of 5. Working: the two-digit numbers possible are 30, 35, 50 and 53. A number is a multiple of 5 only if it ends in 0 or 5: 30 ends in 0, 35 ends in 5, 50 ends in 0, but 53 ends in 3. So there are 3 multiples of 5. Answer: 3. 4 comes from including 53 as a multiple of 5 without checking that its last digit is not 0 or 5. 2 comes from leaving out 50, wrongly assuming 0 cannot be used as the second digit either. 6 comes from listing every two-digit arrangement of the three digits, including ones that start with 0, without applying either restriction.
- (a) 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means the error interval spans half of 0.1, so 0.05, either side of 8.2: 8.2 − 0.05 = 8.15 and 8.2 + 0.05 = 8.25. The lower bound uses ≤ because 8.15 itself rounds to 8.2, but the upper bound uses < because 8.25 would round up to 8.3. So the error interval is 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25. A candidate who used the wrong rounding band gave 8.1 ≤ y < 8.2. A candidate who used a strict inequality at both ends wrote 8.15 < y < 8.25, wrongly excluding 8.15 itself. A candidate who added the full 0.1 instead of half of it wrote 8.2 ≤ y < 8.3.
- (d) 10 — Method: picking 3 flowers from 5 leaves 2 flowers behind, so counting the different pairs that could be left out counts the bunches, and those pairs can be listed systematically. Working: number the flowers 1 to 5; the first flower can be left out alongside any of the 4 flowers after it, the second alongside any of the 3 after it, the third alongside any of the 2 after it and the fourth alongside the last one, so the number of pairs left out is 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 60 comes from working out 5 × 4 × 3 and treating the three picks as an ordered selection when the order does not matter; 30 comes from dividing that product by 2 instead of by the 6 orders in which three chosen flowers could have been picked; 15 comes from multiplying the 5 flowers by the 3 flowers picked instead of counting the selections.
- (a) 4,000 nanometres — Method: the number of nanometres is the diameter divided by the length of one nanometre, and dividing powers of ten means subtracting the indices. Working: −6 − (−9) = 3, so 10⁻⁶ ÷ 10⁻⁹ = 10³, and the diameter is 4 × 10³ nanometres. Answer: 4,000 nanometres. The distractors: 400 nanometres comes from taking the difference between the indices as 2 instead of 3; 4 nanometres comes from changing the name of the unit without converting, leaving the coefficient untouched; 0.004 nanometres comes from dividing by 10³ instead of multiplying by it, as though a nanometre were the larger of the two units.
- (c) £0.45 — Method: find the total cost, then subtract from £20. Working: 4 × £3.20 = £12.80. £12.80 + £6.75 = £19.55. Change = £20.00 − £19.55 = £0.45. Answer: £0.45. (£7.20 comes from forgetting to include the compost and subtracting only the plants' cost from £20. £1.45 comes from dropping the carry when adding the pence: 80p + 75p = £1.55, but only the 55p is written down, giving £18.55 instead of £19.55. £10.05 comes from buying only one plant instead of four, using £3.20 + £6.75.)
- (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.
- (b) £96.90 — Method: multiply the number of units by the cost per unit, then convert the result from pence to pounds. Working: 340 × 28.5p = 9690p; converting to pounds, 9690p ÷ 100 = £96.90. Answer: £96.90. £969.00 comes from misplacing the decimal point when converting pence to pounds, dividing by 10 instead of 100. £9.69 comes from misplacing the decimal point the other way, dividing by 1000 instead of 100. £102.00 comes from rounding the rate to 30p per unit before multiplying.
- (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
- (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.
- (b) £300 — The increased price is 110% of the original, so the original price = £330 ÷ 1.1 = £300. A candidate who finds 10% of £330 and subtracts it, wrongly treating £330 as the original, gets £330 − £33 = £297. A candidate who adds 10% of £330 again instead of reversing the increase gets £330 + £33 = £363. A candidate who divides by 0.1 instead of 1.1 gets £3,300.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.