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) £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.
- (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
- (b) 23 kg — Method: the rounded value sits exactly in the middle of the error interval. Working: the interval 22.5 ≤ m < 23.5 stretches 0.5 either side of the rounded value, so the rounded value is 23. Answer: 23 kg. (22 kg comes from rounding the lower bound down instead of finding the middle of the interval. 22.5 kg comes from giving the lower bound itself rather than the rounded value. 23.5 kg comes from giving the upper bound itself rather than the rounded value.)
- (d) 24 — Method: the three parts of the deal are chosen independently, so every sandwich can be taken with every snack and every one of those pairs with every drink; the product rule multiplies the number of choices in each part. Working: there are 4 choices of sandwich and each can be taken with any of the 3 snacks, giving 4 × 3 = 12 sandwich-and-snack pairs; each of those pairs can be completed with either of the 2 drinks, so the number of meal deals is 12 × 2 = 24. Answer: 24. The distractors: 9 comes from adding the choices, 4 + 3 + 2, instead of multiplying them, and a candidate who adds writes that total down as the count; 12 comes from multiplying the sandwiches by the snacks and never bringing the drink into the count at all; 27 comes from adding the items on the menu to get 9 and then multiplying that by the 3 parts of the deal, which counts the menu rather than the combinations.
- (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.
- (d) £4.80 — Method: find the error interval, then check which value falls outside it. Working: half of 20p is 10p, so the actual cost, c, satisfies £4.50 ≤ c < £4.70. £4.80 is above £4.70, so it could not be the actual cost. Answer: £4.80. (£4.50 is a genuine possible cost — it sits at the included lower boundary. £4.65 is a genuine possible cost, below the £4.70 upper boundary. £4.55 is a genuine possible cost, well inside the interval.)
- (b) No, the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg — Method: find the upper bound of the true mass and compare it with the weight limit. Working: the display is correct to the nearest 5 kg, so half of 5 kg is 2.5 kg, and the true mass, m kg, satisfies 847.5 ≤ m < 852.5. Part of that interval lies above 850 kg, so the parcels are not definitely within the limit. Answer: the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg, which is above the limit. ("Yes, the display reads 850 kg, which is not above the limit" compares the limit with the displayed value instead of with the largest value the true mass could take. "Yes, the true mass is at least 847.5 kg and at most 850 kg" uses the correct half unit below but caps the interval at the limit instead of at 852.5 kg. "No, 850 kg on the display rounds up to 855 kg" wrongly treats the displayed value as if it rounds again.)
- (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.)
- (c) 20p — Turn each price into the same rate before comparing. The small bag is 400 g = 0.4 kg, so it costs £1.12 ÷ 0.4 = £2.80 per kg. The large bag costs £3.90 ÷ 1.5 = £2.60 per kg. The saving is £2.80 − £2.60 = £0.20, which is 20p per kg. 2p compares the prices per 100 g rather than per kilogram, £2.78 subtracts one bag price from the other without turning either into a rate, and £2.60 is the large bag's price per kilogram rather than the saving.
- (a) 3.84 × 10⁵ — 384,000 = 3.84 × 100,000 = 3.84 × 10⁵, with the decimal point moved five places and the coefficient kept between 1 and 10. Moving the point six places instead of five gives 3.84 × 10⁶, ten times too large. Leaving the coefficient as 38.4 gives 38.4 × 10⁴, which is not between 1 and 10. Using a negative exponent instead of a positive one gives 3.84 × 10⁻⁵, a number far smaller than 1.
- (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.
- (c) 4.1 × 10³, 3.2 × 10⁴, 2.9 × 10⁵ — The exponent decides the size first: 10³ is smaller than 10⁴, which is smaller than 10⁵, so the order is 4.1 × 10³, then 3.2 × 10⁴, then 2.9 × 10⁵. Reversing the whole list gives largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. Comparing 3.2 × 10⁴ and 4.1 × 10³ by their coefficients alone, 3.2 against 4.1, and swapping them ignores that 10⁴ is bigger than 10³ regardless of the coefficient. Comparing 2.9 × 10⁵ and 3.2 × 10⁴ by their coefficients alone and swapping them makes the same mistake at the top of the list.
- (c) 4 × 10⁻¹ — Multiply the A values: 8 × 5 = 40. Add the powers of 10: −5 + 3 = −2, giving 40 × 10⁻². Since A must satisfy 1 ≤ A < 10, rewrite 40 as 4 × 10¹, so 40 × 10⁻² = 4 × 10¹ × 10⁻² = 4 × 10⁻¹. A candidate who stopped at 40 × 10⁻² did the index arithmetic correctly but left the answer outside standard form, since 40 is not between 1 and 10. A candidate who adjusted the A value to 4 correctly but then took the power of 10 by subtracting the two given powers, −5 − 3 = −8, wrote 4 × 10⁻⁸. A candidate who adjusted the A value to 4 but multiplied the two given powers, −5 × 3 = −15, wrote 4 × 10⁻¹⁵. Both of these forgot that multiplying in standard form means adding the powers.
- (a) 42.5 ≤ t < 47.5 — Rounding to the nearest 5 minutes means the actual time can be up to half of 5 minutes, 2.5 minutes, below or above 45 before it would round to a different multiple of 5. The lower bound is 45 − 2.5 = 42.5 and the upper bound is 45 + 2.5 = 47.5. A time of exactly 47.5 minutes would round up to 50, not 45, so 47.5 is excluded while 42.5 does still round to 45. Writing 42.5 ≤ t ≤ 47.5 wrongly includes 47.5. Writing 40 ≤ t < 50 uses a whole rounding unit, 5, either side instead of half of it. Writing 44.5 ≤ t < 45.5 treats the rounding unit as 1 minute instead of 5 minutes.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.