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) 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.)
- (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) 6 — Method: the two scoops sit in different places on the cone, so a cone is an ordered choice; the possibilities can be listed systematically or counted by multiplying the choices available at each stage. Working: there are 3 flavours for the bottom scoop, and once that flavour is used only 2 flavours remain for the top scoop, so there are 3 × 2 = 6 cones; listing them confirms this, since vanilla on the bottom allows mango or pistachio on top, mango on the bottom allows vanilla or pistachio, and pistachio on the bottom allows vanilla or mango. Answer: 6. The distractors: 3 comes from treating the two scoops as interchangeable, so that vanilla under mango and mango under vanilla are counted as one cone; 9 comes from allowing the same flavour to be used for both scoops, giving 3 × 3; 5 comes from adding the 3 choices for the bottom scoop to the 2 choices left for the top scoop instead of multiplying them.
- (b) 93.9975 — Each measurement was rounded to 1 decimal place, so the error is half of 0.1: length is 12.35 ≤ L < 12.45, and width is 7.45 ≤ W < 7.55. The upper bound for the area comes from multiplying the upper bounds of both dimensions: 12.45 × 7.55 = 93.9975 m². Using the lower bound of both dimensions instead, 12.35 × 7.45 = 92.0075 m², gives the lower bound of the area rather than the upper one. Multiplying the two given rounded values directly, 12.4 × 7.5 = 93, forgets that a rounded measurement is not exact and needs its own error interval. Bounding only the length and leaving the width at its given value, 12.45 × 7.5 = 93.375, misses that the width also has an upper bound of its own.
- (c) 3 × 10⁶ — Daily revenue = (4 × 10³) × 2.5 = 1 × 10⁴ (£10,000). Multiplying by the number of days, (3 × 10²), gives annual revenue = (1 × 10⁴) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁶ (£3,000,000). A candidate who forgot to multiply by the price and just multiplied the number of items by the number of days worked out (4 × 10³) × (3 × 10²) = 1.2 × 10⁶. A candidate who added the number of days to the daily revenue instead of multiplying worked out 1 × 10⁴ + 3 × 10² = 1.03 × 10⁴. A candidate who misread £2.50 as £25 worked out a daily revenue of (4 × 10³) × 25 = 1 × 10⁵, giving an annual total of (1 × 10⁵) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁷.
- (a) 1,500 ≤ m < 2,500 — Method: a four-digit figure written to 1 significant figure has been rounded to the nearest 1,000, so the mass lies within half of 1,000, that is 500, of the figure given. Working: 2,000 − 500 = 1,500 and 2,000 + 500 = 2,500. The lower limit is included, because 1,500 kg rounds up to 2,000 kg to 1 significant figure, while 2,500 kg rounds up to 3,000 kg, so the upper limit is not. Answer: 1,500 ≤ m < 2,500. The distractors: 1,950 ≤ m < 2,050 comes from rounding to the nearest 100 instead of to 1 significant figure; 1,000 ≤ m < 3,000 goes a whole 1,000 either side instead of half of it; 1,500 < m ≤ 2,500 has the two limits the wrong way round.
- (b) 78 hours — From 10:00 on Monday to 10:00 on Thursday is exactly 3 complete days, which is 3 × 24 = 72 hours. From 10:00 to 16:00 on the Thursday is a further 6 hours, giving a total of 72 + 6 = 78 hours. Counting Monday to Thursday as 4 full calendar days instead of 3 complete 24-hour periods gives 4 × 24 = 96 hours. Undercounting the number of complete days as 2 instead of 3 gives 2 × 24 + 6 = 54 hours. Subtracting the extra 6 hours instead of adding them to the 3 complete days gives 72 − 6 = 66 hours.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 12 — Method: build the number one place at a time, listing systematically: fix the tens digit, then run through every units digit that is still available. Working: any of the 4 digits can go in the tens place, and once it has been used only 3 digits are left for the units place, so there are 4 × 3 = 12 numbers; listing the numbers that begin with 1 gives 12, 13 and 14, and each of the other three starting digits gives 3 numbers in the same way. Answer: 12. The distractors: 16 comes from working out 4 × 4, which allows a digit to be used twice; 8 comes from multiplying the 4 digits by the 2 places in the number instead of multiplying the choices available at each place; 6 comes from treating a number and its reverse as the same, counting only the unordered pairs of digits.
- (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) 9π cm² — The area of a circle is π × r². With a radius of 3 cm this is π × 3² = 9π cm², and this is exact because π has not been replaced by any approximation. Writing 28.3 cm² replaces π with a rounded decimal value, 3.14, and then rounds the result again, so it is only an approximation. Writing 28.26 cm² uses π ≈ 3.14 without a final rounding step, but this is still only an approximation of 9π, not the exact value. Writing 27 cm² comes from replacing π with the rough approximation 3, which is even further from the true value.
- (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) 8,350 — Rounding to the nearest 100 means the true number can be up to half of 100, which is 50, below the recorded figure before it would round down to a lower hundred. The smallest possible number is therefore 8,400 − 50 = 8,350. Adding 50 instead of subtracting it gives 8,450, which is the upper end of the interval rather than the smallest value, and 8,450 is not itself possible because it would round up to 8,500. Subtracting a whole 100 instead of half of it gives 8,300, going too far below the recorded value. Subtracting 10 instead of half of the rounding unit gives 8,390, treating the rounding unit as 100 but the tolerance as only 10.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.