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) 33.5 mph — Method: the smallest possible actual value is half the rounding unit below the given value. Working: half of 1 mph is 0.5 mph, so the smallest possible speed is 34 − 0.5 = 33.5 mph. Answer: 33.5 mph. (33 mph comes from subtracting the whole rounding unit, 1, instead of half of it. 34 mph comes from giving the rounded value itself rather than the lower bound. 34.5 mph comes from adding the half unit instead of subtracting it, giving the upper bound.)
- (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.
- (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) £8.20 — Method: find the total cost, then subtract from the amount paid. Working: 35 × £1.48 = £51.80. Amount paid = 3 × £20 = £60.00. Change = £60.00 − £51.80 = £8.20. Answer: £8.20. (£58.52 comes from forgetting to multiply the price by the 35 litres and subtracting only £1.48 from £60. £7.50 comes from rounding £1.48 up to £1.50 before multiplying, giving a total of £52.50 instead of £51.80. £9.20 comes from miscarrying in the pence column when subtracting £51.80 from £60.00.)
- (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) 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.
- (c) 12.44 — The error intervals are 155.5 ≤ mass < 156.5 and 11.5 ≤ volume < 12.5. To make a quotient as small as possible, use the SMALLEST possible numerator together with the LARGEST possible denominator: 155.5 ÷ 12.5 = 12.44 g/cm³. Using the lower bound for both mass and volume, 155.5 ÷ 11.5 ≈ 13.52, forgets that dividing by a smaller number makes the result bigger, not smaller — that pairing does not give a minimum at all. Dividing the two given rounded values directly, 156 ÷ 12 = 13, ignores that both measurements have their own error interval. Using the upper bound of mass with the upper bound of volume, 156.5 ÷ 12.5 = 12.52, takes both bounds the same way round; it is neither the minimum nor the maximum, since the maximum needs the largest mass with the smallest volume, 156.5 ÷ 11.5 ≈ 13.61.
- (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) 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) 0.024 cm — Method: significant figures are counted from the first non-zero digit; the zeros in front of it only fix the place value and are not significant. Working: in 0.02384 the first significant figure is 2 and the second is 3, so the rounding is decided by the next digit, 8. As 8 is 5 or more, the second significant figure goes up from 3 to 4, in the same place value. Answer: 0.024 cm. The distractors: 0.023 cm comes from chopping the 84 off instead of rounding it; 0.02 cm comes from counting the leading zeros as significant figures, so the 2 is taken as the second figure and the rounding stops there; 0.0238 cm is 0.02384 correct to 3 significant figures, one figure too many.
- (a) 40 — Method: a number is odd exactly when its units digit is odd, so the restricted position is filled first and the two free positions are then filled from the digits that are left, multiplying the number of choices at each stage. Working: of the six digits only 3 and 9 are odd, so there are 2 choices for the units digit; once that digit has been used, 5 digits remain for the hundreds position and then 4 remain for the tens position, so the count is 2 × 5 × 4 = 40. Answer: 40. The distractors: 120 comes from ignoring the word odd altogether and counting every three-digit number that can be made from the six digits, 6 × 5 × 4; 60 comes from filling the hundreds and tens positions first, 6 then 5, and only then allowing 2 odd digits for the units position, which overcounts because one of 3 and 9 may already have been used, giving 6 × 5 × 2; 72 comes from restricting the units digit to 3 or 9 correctly but overlooking the condition that no digit may be used twice, so all six digits are still counted as available for each of the other two positions, giving 2 × 6 × 6.
- (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.
- (d) 360 km — Method: first find the kilometres per litre by dividing distance by fuel used, then multiply this rate by the new tank size. Working: 180 ÷ 6 = 30 km per litre; 30 × 12 = 360 km. Answer: 360 km. 30 km comes from finding the correct fuel consumption but stopping there, without scaling it up to the full tank. 2160 km comes from multiplying the original distance (180) by the tank size (12) directly, skipping the unit rate. 90 km comes from pairing the numbers the wrong way round: dividing the distance by the new tank size, 180 ÷ 12 = 15, and then multiplying by the original 6 litres, 15 × 6 = 90.
- (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.