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) 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.
- (c) £384.00 — Adding 20% VAT means multiplying the price by 1.2: £320 × 1.2 = £384.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £320 + £20, gives £340.00. Working out the VAT amount alone, £320 × 0.2 = £64.00, and stopping there without adding it back to the original price gives just the VAT, not the total price. Misplacing the decimal point and using 2% instead of 20%, £320 × 1.02, gives £326.40.
- (a) £600 — Method: round the number of cakes and the price of each cake to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 187 rounds to 200, and £2.95 rounds to £3 (the digit after the first, 9, rounds the 2 up to 3), so the estimate is 200 × £3 = £600. £400 comes from rounding £2.95 down to £2 instead of up to £3, giving 200 × £2 = £400. £561 comes from rounding only the price and using the exact number of cakes, 187 × £3 = £561. £570 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 as 190 instead of to 1 significant figure as 200, giving 190 × £3 = £570. Answer: £600.
- (c) 0.0065 — Leading zeros are never significant, so counting from the first non-zero digit, the first two significant figures of 0.006482 are 6 and 4. Look at the next digit along, 8, to decide whether the second figure rounds up: since 8 is 5 or more, the 4 rounds up to 5, giving 0.0065. Rounding to 2 decimal places instead of 2 significant figures gives 0.01, which answers a different question. Wrongly counting one of the leading zeros as a significant figure and stopping one figure short gives 0.006. Keeping an extra digit, as in 0.00648, gives 3 significant figures rather than 2.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
- (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.)
- (c) Sam is correct — The leading zeros in 0.070268 are not significant, so the first three significant figures are 7, 0 and 2. The next digit along is 6, and since 6 is 5 or more, the third significant figure rounds up from 2 to 3, giving 0.0703. This means Sam's answer is correct. Writing 0.070 keeps only 2 significant figures, one short of what was asked. Writing 0.0702 ignores the digit 6 that follows and leaves the third figure unrounded. Writing 0.0704 rounds the third figure up twice, as if a later digit had also pushed it up.
- (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.
- (d) −1.4, −6/5, 0, 5/4, 1.3 — Method: convert the fractions 5/4 and −6/5 to decimals so every number is written the same way, then compare all five decimals. Working: 5/4 = 1.25 and −6/5 = −1.2. Comparing −1.4, −1.2, 0, 1.25 and 1.3 in size gives the order −1.4, −1.2, 0, 1.25, 1.3. Answer: −1.4, −6/5, 0, 5/4, 1.3. −6/5, −1.4, 0, 5/4, 1.3 swaps the two negative numbers, treating −6/5 as more negative than −1.4 even though −1.2 is closer to zero than −1.4. 1.3, 5/4, 0, −6/5, −1.4 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. −1.4, −6/5, 0, 1.3, 5/4 swaps 5/4 and 1.3, comparing the numerator 5 directly with 1.3 instead of converting 5/4 to the decimal 1.25 first.
- (c) 5 — Method: work out the volume of one box, divide the total volume by it, then round down since a partial box cannot fit. Working: volume of one box = 7³ = 343 cm³. 2000 ÷ 343 = 5.83 (2 d.p.). Since only whole boxes fit, the greatest number is 5. Answer: 5. (6 comes from rounding 5.83 up to the nearest whole number instead of rounding down to the number of boxes that actually fit. 343 comes from giving the volume of one box instead of the number of boxes. 5.8 comes from leaving the division as a decimal instead of rounding down to a whole number of boxes.)
- (a) 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6 — Convert all four fractions to a common denominator of 30: 2/3 is 20/30, 3/5 is 18/30, 5/6 is 25/30, and 1/2 is 15/30. Ordering by these numerators, smallest to largest, gives 15/30, 18/30, 20/30, 25/30, which is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6. Ordering by the size of the numerator in the original fractions, 1, 2, 3, 5, rather than converting to a common denominator, gives the wrong order 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/6, because it ignores that the denominators are different. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 5/6, 2/3, 3/5, 1/2. Using the rule "the bigger the denominator, the smaller the fraction" to place the last two, so that 5/6 is put below 2/3 because 6 is bigger than 3, gives 1/2, 3/5, 5/6, 2/3 — that rule only holds when the numerators are the same, and here 20/30 really is smaller than 25/30. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6.
- (b) 3 — Method: list all valid two-digit numbers that can be made without starting with 0, then keep only the ones that are multiples of 5. Working: the two-digit numbers possible are 30, 35, 50 and 53. A number is a multiple of 5 only if it ends in 0 or 5: 30 ends in 0, 35 ends in 5, 50 ends in 0, but 53 ends in 3. So there are 3 multiples of 5. Answer: 3. 4 comes from including 53 as a multiple of 5 without checking that its last digit is not 0 or 5. 2 comes from leaving out 50, wrongly assuming 0 cannot be used as the second digit either. 6 comes from listing every two-digit arrangement of the three digits, including ones that start with 0, without applying either restriction.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.