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
- (c) 6.3 × 10⁷ — To add numbers in standard form, first write them with the same power of 10. 6 × 10⁷ = 60 × 10⁶, so the sum is 60 × 10⁶ + 3 × 10⁶ = 63 × 10⁶ = 6.3 × 10⁷. A candidate who added the A values without adjusting for the different powers worked out 6 + 3 = 9 and kept the larger power, writing 9 × 10⁷. A candidate who added the powers of 10 as if multiplying wrote 9 × 10¹³. A candidate who added the A values but used the smaller power wrote 9 × 10⁶.
- (a) 900 kg/m³ — Both parts of the compound unit change. There are 100 cm in a metre, so 1 m³ = 100³ = 1 000 000 cm³, and there are 1000 g in a kilogram. So 1 g/cm³ = 1 000 000 ÷ 1000 = 1000 kg/m³, and the plastic is 0.9 × 1000 = 900 kg/m³. 900 000 kg/m³ converts the volume but leaves the mass in grams, 0.0009 kg/m³ converts the mass but leaves the volume in cm³, and 0.09 kg/m³ uses the 100 cm in a metre without cubing it.
- (b) £37 — One box costs £4 + £3 = £7. Five boxes cost 5 × £7 = £35. Adding the single £2 delivery fee gives £35 + £2 = £37. A candidate who added the £2 delivery fee to each box instead of once for the whole order worked out 5 × (£7 + £2) = 5 × £9 = £45. A candidate who forgot the £3 markup and used the shop's buying price worked out 5 × £4 + £2 = £22. A candidate who added the £3 markup only once, after multiplying the buying price by 5, worked out 5 × £4 + £3 + £2 = £25.
- (c) 2.5 × 10⁶ — Divide the A values: 5 ÷ 2 = 2.5. Subtract the powers of 10: 4 − (−2) = 4 + 2 = 6. So the answer is 2.5 × 10⁶. A candidate who worked out 4 − 2 = 2, treating the subtraction of a negative as an ordinary subtraction, wrote 2.5 × 10². A candidate who subtracted in the wrong order, −2 − 4 = −6, wrote 2.5 × 10⁻⁶. A candidate who multiplied the A values instead of dividing, 5 × 2 = 10, and added the powers, 4 + (−2) = 2, then rewrote 10 × 10² in standard form as 1 × 10³.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 1.6 × 10⁵ — 5.6 ÷ 3.5 = 1.6, and 7 − 2 = 5, so the average turnover per shop is 1.6 × 10⁵ pounds. Multiplying the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 7 × 2 = 14, so 1.6 × 10¹⁴. Adding the exponents instead of subtracting them gives 7 + 2 = 9, so 1.6 × 10⁹. Subtracting the coefficients instead of dividing them gives 5.6 − 3.5 = 2.1, so 2.1 × 10⁵.
- (a) 6 × 10² metres — Method: distance = speed × time, so multiply the coefficients and add the indices. Working: 3 × 2 = 6 for the coefficients, and 8 + (−6) = 2 for the indices; 6 lies between 1 and 10, so the coefficient needs no adjustment. Answer: 6 × 10² metres, which is 600 metres. The distractors: 5 × 10² metres comes from adding the coefficients, 3 + 2, instead of multiplying them; 6 × 10¹⁴ metres comes from subtracting the indices, 8 − (−6), which is the rule for dividing rather than for multiplying; 6 × 10⁻⁴⁸ metres comes from multiplying the indices, 8 × (−6), instead of adding them.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.)
- (d) −1.4, −6/5, 0, 5/4, 1.3 — Method: convert the fractions 5/4 and −6/5 to decimals so every number is written the same way, then compare all five decimals. Working: 5/4 = 1.25 and −6/5 = −1.2. Comparing −1.4, −1.2, 0, 1.25 and 1.3 in size gives the order −1.4, −1.2, 0, 1.25, 1.3. Answer: −1.4, −6/5, 0, 5/4, 1.3. −6/5, −1.4, 0, 5/4, 1.3 swaps the two negative numbers, treating −6/5 as more negative than −1.4 even though −1.2 is closer to zero than −1.4. 1.3, 5/4, 0, −6/5, −1.4 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. −1.4, −6/5, 0, 1.3, 5/4 swaps 5/4 and 1.3, comparing the numerator 5 directly with 1.3 instead of converting 5/4 to the decimal 1.25 first.
- (d) 24.69 — To round to 2 decimal places, look only at the third decimal digit to decide whether the second decimal digit rounds up. In 24.6851 the third decimal digit is 5, and since 5 is 5 or more, the second decimal digit rounds up from 8 to 9, giving 24.69. Rounding to 1 decimal place instead of 2 gives 24.7, one place value too coarse. Keeping the third decimal digit rather than dropping it gives 24.685, which is 3 decimal places. Looking at the fourth decimal digit, 1, instead of the third one, and wrongly deciding that no rounding is needed, leaves the length unrounded at 24.68.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.