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) 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.
- (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.
- (b) 120 — Method: fill the positions on the shelf one at a time; each book placed leaves one fewer book available for the next position, and the product rule multiplies the choices. Working: there are 5 books for the first position, 4 for the second, 3 for the third, 2 for the fourth and 1 for the last, so the number of orders is 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 120. Answer: 120. The distractors: 25 comes from multiplying the 5 books by the 5 positions rather than multiplying the shrinking number of choices at each position; 60 comes from halving the correct product, as though each order had been counted twice in the way that pairs are; 720 comes from carrying the product one factor too far and working out 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1, as though there were six books.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) £196.35 — Method: convert both prices to pounds, multiply each by its quantity, then add the two totals. Working: 340 rolls at £0.24 each = £81.60; 85 cakes at £1.35 each = £114.75; £81.60 + £114.75 = £196.35. Answer: £196.35. £81.60 comes from working out the cost of the rolls only and forgetting to add the cost of the cakes. £114.75 comes from working out the cost of the cakes only and forgetting to add the cost of the rolls. £122.91 comes from converting 24p to £0.024 instead of £0.24, a place value error of a factor of 10 in the price of the rolls, before adding the correctly worked out cost of the cakes.
- (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) £800 — Rounding 38.7 to 1 significant figure gives 40, and rounding 21.40 to 1 significant figure gives 20. Multiplying the rounded values gives an estimate of 40 × 20 = £800. Rounding 21.40 to the nearest whole number instead of to 1 significant figure gives 21, and 40 × 21 = £840, one place value too fine for the price. Adding the rounded values instead of multiplying them gives 40 + 20 = £60. Rounding both numbers to 2 significant figures instead of 1, giving 39 and 21, produces 39 × 21 = £819.
- (c) 12.3 ≤ t < 12.4 — Method: truncating cuts the later digits off instead of rounding them, so nothing is ever pushed upwards. The displayed value is therefore the smallest the time can be, and the time can run up to, but not reach, the next value the display can show. Working: the display reads 12.3, so the actual time is at least 12.3 seconds; as soon as the time reaches 12.3 + 0.1 = 12.4 seconds the display would read 12.4, so 12.4 is not included. Answer: 12.3 ≤ t < 12.4. The distractors: 12.25 ≤ t < 12.35 is the interval for a time rounded to 1 decimal place, and this display does not round; 12.3 < t ≤ 12.4 excludes the one value the display certainly allows and includes the one it rules out; 12.3 ≤ t ≤ 12.4 treats 12.4 seconds as possible, but at 12.4 seconds the display would no longer read 12.3.
- (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) 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.
- (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) £120 — Total parts = 5 + 3 = 8, so one part is worth 320 ÷ 8 = 40 pounds. The cake sale is 3 parts, so it raised 3 × 40 = 120 pounds. £200 comes from working out the raffle's share, 5 × 40, instead of the cake sale's share. £40 comes from finding the value of one part but forgetting to multiply by 3. £192 comes from dividing the total by 5 instead of 8 to find the value of one part, 320 ÷ 5 = 64, then multiplying by 3, 3 × 64 = 192.
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.