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
- (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.
- (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) 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.
- (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.)
- (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 0.024 cm — Method: significant figures are counted from the first non-zero digit; the zeros in front of it only fix the place value and are not significant. Working: in 0.02384 the first significant figure is 2 and the second is 3, so the rounding is decided by the next digit, 8. As 8 is 5 or more, the second significant figure goes up from 3 to 4, in the same place value. Answer: 0.024 cm. The distractors: 0.023 cm comes from chopping the 84 off instead of rounding it; 0.02 cm comes from counting the leading zeros as significant figures, so the 2 is taken as the second figure and the rounding stops there; 0.0238 cm is 0.02384 correct to 3 significant figures, one figure too many.
- (b) Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g — Method: a mass shown to the nearest 10 g lies within half of 10 g, that is 5 g, of the figure on the display, so compare the smallest mass the bag can have with the checker's limit of 996 g. Working: 1,000 − 5 = 995, so the actual mass of the bag can be as low as 995 g, and 995 g is below the 996 g limit, so a bag showing 1,000 g on the machine can still be rejected. Answer: Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g. The distractors: 990 g comes from going a whole 10 g below the display instead of half of it; 999.5 g comes from treating the display as being to the nearest gram, when it is to the nearest 10 g; the claim that the mass is exactly 1,000 g treats a rounded display as an exact measurement.
- (c) 45 — Method: count the ordered pairings with the product rule and then correct for the fact that a game between two players is the same game whichever player it is counted from. Working: each of the 10 players meets 9 opponents, so 10 × 9 = 90 pairings are counted; every game has been counted twice, once from each player's side, so the number of games is 90 ÷ 2 = 45. Answer: 45. The distractors: 90 comes from stopping at 10 × 9 and never halving, so that each game is counted once for each of its two players; 55 comes from adding 10 + 9 + 8 + ... + 1 instead of 9 + 8 + ... + 1, which counts one extra round of games; 20 comes from multiplying the 10 players by the 2 players in each game rather than pairing the players with one another.
- (b) £96.90 — Method: multiply the number of units by the cost per unit, then convert the result from pence to pounds. Working: 340 × 28.5p = 9690p; converting to pounds, 9690p ÷ 100 = £96.90. Answer: £96.90. £969.00 comes from misplacing the decimal point when converting pence to pounds, dividing by 10 instead of 100. £9.69 comes from misplacing the decimal point the other way, dividing by 1000 instead of 100. £102.00 comes from rounding the rate to 30p per unit before multiplying.
- (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.
- (d) 1.2 × 10⁵ — 4 × 3 = 12, and 3 + 1 = 4, giving 12 × 10⁴ — but 12 is not between 1 and 10, so this must be rewritten as 1.2 × 10⁵. Stopping at 12 × 10⁴ without rewriting it leaves the coefficient out of range. Rewriting 12 as 1.2 but leaving the exponent at 4 instead of increasing it to 5 gives 1.2 × 10⁴, which is ten times too small. Adding the coefficients instead of multiplying them gives 4 + 3 = 7, so 7 × 10⁴.
- (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.
- (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.