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) 11 — Method: work out the total number of combinations as if there were no restriction, then subtract the one combination that is not allowed. Working: without any restriction there are 4 backdrops × 3 outfits = 12 combinations. The grey backdrop with the formal suit is not allowed, removing 1 combination: 12 − 1 = 11. Answer: 11. 12 comes from forgetting to remove the combination that is not allowed. 8 comes from removing the entire formal suit outfit from the count instead of just the one combination with the grey backdrop. 10 comes from removing two combinations instead of just the one that is not allowed.
- (d) 64 — Method: each time the power increases by 1, the value doubles, since one more 2 is multiplied in. Working: 2⁶ = 2⁵ × 2 = 32 × 2 = 64. Answer: 64. (37 comes from adding the power to the value, 32 + 5, instead of multiplying by the base. 192 comes from multiplying 32 by the new power, 6, instead of by the base, 2. 34 comes from adding the base to the value, 32 + 2, instead of multiplying.)
- (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.
- (d) £6 — First find 30% of £200, which is £60, then find 10% of that: £60 × 0.1 = £6. Adding the two percentages together instead of applying them one after the other, 10% + 30% = 40%, and finding 40% of £200 gives £80. Finding 30% of £200 = £60 correctly but stopping before applying the second percentage leaves £60 as the final answer. Finding only 10% of the original £200, ignoring the 30% entirely, gives £20.
- (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.
- (c) 22 — Without restriction there are 6 × 4 = 24 combinations. Two specific combinations are not available, so subtract 2: 24 − 2 = 22. 24 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 23 comes from subtracting only 1 of the 2 excluded combinations. 18 comes from removing the whole sport trim level, 6 × 3 = 18, instead of removing just the two excluded combinations.
- (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) 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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 30 kg — Round 0.485 kg to 1 significant figure: 0.5 kg. Multiply by the 60 cakes: 0.5 × 60 = 30 kg. A candidate who rounded to 2 significant figures instead of 1 used 0.49 kg, giving 0.49 × 60 = 29.4 kg. A candidate who used the unrounded amount instead of the estimate worked out 0.485 × 60 = 29.1 kg. A candidate who rounded 0.485 down to 0.4 kg instead of up to 0.5 kg worked out 0.4 × 60 = 24 kg.
- (c) £47.00 — First apply the 20% reduction: £65 × 0.8 = £52.00. Then take off the further £5: £52.00 − £5 = £47.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £65 − £20 − £5, gives £40.00. Applying the 20% reduction correctly but forgetting to take off the extra £5 leaves £52.00. Taking off the £5 first and then applying the 20% reduction to the smaller amount, (£65 − £5) × 0.8, gives £48.00.
- (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.
- (a) 200 g — One quarter of 160 g is 40 g. Increasing the amount means adding this on: 160 + 40 = 200 g. Finding the increase, 1/4 of 160 = 40 g, but stopping there without adding it to the original amount leaves just 40 g. Using 4/5 instead of 5/4 as the scaling fraction, 160 × 4/5 = 128 g, actually decreases the amount rather than increasing it. Increasing by a half instead of a quarter, 160 + 80 = 240 g, uses the wrong fraction of 160.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.