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) 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) 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.
- (a) 17 — Method: work out each power separately, then combine them as the question asks. Working: $2^3 = 8$ and $3^2 = 9$, and 8 + 9 = 17. 72 comes from working out 8 × 9 = 72, multiplying the two powers instead of adding them. 12 comes from misreading the powers as repeated multiplication of the base by the index, 2 × 3 + 3 × 2 = 6 + 6 = 12. −1 comes from working out 8 − 9 = −1, subtracting the powers instead of adding them. Answer: 17.
- (a) 3.84 × 10⁵ — 384,000 = 3.84 × 100,000 = 3.84 × 10⁵, with the decimal point moved five places and the coefficient kept between 1 and 10. Moving the point six places instead of five gives 3.84 × 10⁶, ten times too large. Leaving the coefficient as 38.4 gives 38.4 × 10⁴, which is not between 1 and 10. Using a negative exponent instead of a positive one gives 3.84 × 10⁻⁵, a number far smaller than 1.
- (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.
- (d) £70 — Method: the discount is a percentage of the original price only, so work it out, subtract it, and add the fixed delivery charge afterwards. Working: 25% of £80 is £80 ÷ 4 = £20, so the discounted price is £80 − £20 = £60, and the total is £60 + £10 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £60 comes from working out the discounted price and stopping there, leaving the delivery charge out of the total; £65 comes from taking £25 off the price instead of 25% of it, giving £80 − £25 = £55 and then £55 + £10 = £65; £67.50 comes from adding the delivery charge before the discount and reducing the whole amount, giving 75% of £90 = £67.50.
- (c) 19 — Without any restriction there would be 5 × 4 = 20 different sandwiches. The restriction removes exactly one combination, cheese and mustard on gluten-free bread, so subtract 1: 20 − 1 = 19. 20 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 15 comes from removing the gluten-free bread altogether, as if none of the fillings were available on it, 5 × 3 = 15. 16 comes from removing the cheese and mustard filling completely, as if it were not available on any bread, 4 × 4 = 16.
- (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) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
- (b) £300 — The increased price is 110% of the original, so the original price = £330 ÷ 1.1 = £300. A candidate who finds 10% of £330 and subtracts it, wrongly treating £330 as the original, gets £330 − £33 = £297. A candidate who adds 10% of £330 again instead of reversing the increase gets £330 + £33 = £363. A candidate who divides by 0.1 instead of 1.1 gets £3,300.
- (b) 23 kg — Method: the rounded value sits exactly in the middle of the error interval. Working: the interval 22.5 ≤ m < 23.5 stretches 0.5 either side of the rounded value, so the rounded value is 23. Answer: 23 kg. (22 kg comes from rounding the lower bound down instead of finding the middle of the interval. 22.5 kg comes from giving the lower bound itself rather than the rounded value. 23.5 kg comes from giving the upper bound itself rather than the rounded value.)
- (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.
- (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.)
- (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.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.