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) 30 — Method: 12% of an amount is 12/100 of it, so find 1% by dividing by 100 and then multiply by 12. Working: 1% of 250 is 250 ÷ 100 = 2.5, and 12% is 2.5 × 12 = 30. Answer: 30 seats. The distractors: 3 comes from writing 12% as 0.012 instead of 0.12, giving 0.012 × 250 = 3; 25 comes from finding 10% of the seats and stopping there; 24 comes from counting 12 seats for each whole hundred, 12 + 12 = 24, and ignoring the remaining 50 seats.
- (c) 8 hours 35 minutes — From 21:35 to midnight is 2 hours 25 minutes, and from midnight to 06:10 is a further 6 hours 10 minutes, giving a total of 8 hours 35 minutes. Misreading the departure time as 22:35 instead of 21:35 loses an hour from the calculation and gives 7 hours 35 minutes. Misreading the departure time as 20:35 instead of 21:35 gains an hour and gives 9 hours 35 minutes. Subtracting the times as if both fell on the same day, without crossing midnight, gives 15 hours 25 minutes.
- (a) 8.35 ≤ L < 8.45 — Method: a length rounded to 1 decimal place lies within half of 0.1 cm, that is 0.05 cm, of the value written down. The lower limit is included because it rounds up to that value, and the upper limit is excluded because it rounds up to the next value instead. Working: 8.4 − 0.05 = 8.35 and 8.4 + 0.05 = 8.45, so a length of 8.35 cm still rounds to 8.4 cm while a length of 8.45 cm rounds to 8.5 cm. Answer: 8.35 ≤ L < 8.45. The distractors: 8.3 ≤ L < 8.5 goes a whole 0.1 cm either side instead of half of it; 8.35 < L ≤ 8.45 has the two limits the wrong way round, excluding the length that does round to 8.4 cm and including the one that does not; 8.4 ≤ L < 8.5 is the interval for a length truncated to 1 decimal place, not one rounded to it.
- (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.
- (d) 720 — Method: the three medals are awarded one after the other, and each award removes one athlete from the pool available for the next, so the product rule multiplies the number of choices at each stage. Working: 10 athletes could take gold; once gold is settled 9 could take silver; once silver is settled 8 could take bronze; so the number of ways is 10 × 9 × 8 = 720. Answer: 720. The distractors: 1000 comes from working out 10 × 10 × 10, which allows the same athlete to take more than one medal; 120 comes from dividing the product by 6, which would be right only if the three medals were identical, whereas gold, silver and bronze are different; 30 comes from multiplying the 10 athletes by the 3 medals instead of multiplying the choices at each stage.
- (d) 1050 ml — Convert both amounts to millilitres: 1.8 litres = 1800 ml and 3/4 litre = 750 ml. Subtracting gives 1800 − 750 = 1050 ml. Confusing 3/4 with 75% and converting it as 75 ml instead of 750 ml gives 1800 − 75 = 1725 ml. Adding the amount poured out instead of subtracting it gives 1800 + 750 = 2550 ml. Misreading 1.8 litres as 0.8 litres, losing the whole litre, gives 800 − 750 = 50 ml.
- (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.
- (b) £13.48 — Method: an amount of money is written to the nearest penny, which is 2 decimal places, so the calculator display has to be rounded to 2 decimal places. Working: 53.90 ÷ 4 = 13.475, and the digit in the third decimal place is 5, so the penny digit goes up from 7 to 8. Answer: £13.48. The distractors: £13.47 comes from chopping the third decimal place off instead of rounding with it; £13.50 comes from rounding to the nearest 10p rather than to the nearest penny; £13.40 comes from cutting the display short at 1 decimal place, which is both the wrong degree of accuracy and a truncation rather than a rounding.
- (a) 56 — Method: count the ordered selections with the product rule first, then divide by the number of different orders in which any one committee could have been picked. Working: there are 8 choices for a first pupil, 7 for a second and 6 for a third, giving 8 × 7 × 6 = 336 ordered selections; any particular three pupils could have been picked in 3 × 2 × 1 = 6 orders, so the number of different committees is 336 ÷ 6 = 56. Answer: 56. The distractors: 336 comes from stopping at 8 × 7 × 6 and treating the three places as distinct posts when they are identical; 168 comes from dividing that product by 2 rather than by the 6 orders in which three chosen pupils can be listed; 24 comes from multiplying the 8 volunteers by the 3 places instead of multiplying the choices at each stage.
- (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) 25 cm — Method: for a cube, the edge length is the cube root of the volume. Working: 25 × 25 × 25 = 15,625, so the edge length is 25 cm. 5 cm comes from cube-rooting 125 instead of 15,625, misreading the number of digits. 50 cm comes from working out 25 × 2 = 50, doubling the correct edge length. 125 cm comes from taking the square root of the volume instead of the cube root, since 125 × 125 = 15,625 — that would be the side of a SQUARE of area 15,625, not the edge of a cube of that volume. Answer: 25 cm.
- (b) 1.45 ≤ m < 1.55 — The flour's mass is labelled 1.5 kg, correct to the nearest 0.1 kg, so half of 0.1 kg is added to and subtracted from 1.5 kg to find the interval: 1.5 − 0.05 = 1.45 and 1.5 + 0.05 = 1.55, giving 1.45 ≤ m < 1.55. '1.4 ≤ m < 1.6' comes from taking the whole 0.1 kg as the margin either side, instead of half of it. '1.45 < m ≤ 1.55' comes from writing the inequality signs the wrong way round — the lower bound should be included and the upper bound excluded, not the other way round. '1.45 ≤ m ≤ 1.55' comes from including the upper bound, when the convention is that the upper bound is never actually reached.
- (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) 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601 — Compare the decimals by giving them all the same number of decimal places first: 0.600, 0.550, 0.601, 0.500, 0.560. Ordering these from smallest to largest gives 0.500, 0.550, 0.560, 0.600, 0.601, which is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601. Comparing the digits as though they were whole numbers, reading 0.601 as "601" and 0.5 as "5", without padding to the same number of decimal places, gives the wrong order 0.5, 0.6, 0.55, 0.56, 0.601, because it ignores the place value of each digit. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 0.601, 0.6, 0.56, 0.55, 0.5. Misreading the close values 0.55 and 0.56 and swapping them gives 0.5, 0.56, 0.55, 0.6, 0.601. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601.
- (c) 7 × 10⁻⁸ — '100 times smaller' means dividing by 100 = 10². Dividing 7 × 10⁻⁶ by 10² means subtracting 2 from the exponent: −6 − 2 = −8, giving 7 × 10⁻⁸. A candidate who multiplied by 100 instead of dividing added 2 to the exponent, getting 7 × 10⁻⁴. A candidate who divided by 10 instead of 100 subtracted only 1 from the exponent, getting 7 × 10⁻⁵. A candidate who did not apply the scale factor at all left the diameter as 7 × 10⁻⁶, the same as the red blood cell.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.