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.
Non-calculator
Answer key: Number worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (c) 0.7, 0.72, 3/4 — Method: numbers written in different forms cannot be compared as they stand, so every fraction is turned into a decimal by dividing the numerator by the denominator, and the decimals are then compared place by place from the left. Working: 3/4 means 3 ÷ 4 = 0.75, so the three values to compare are 0.7, 0.75 and 0.72; written to two decimal places they are 0.70, 0.75 and 0.72, and the hundredths digits 0, 5 and 2 put 0.70 first, 0.72 next and 0.75 last; written again in the forms the question used, the order from smallest is 0.7, then 0.72, then 3/4. Answer: 0.7, 0.72, 3/4. The distractors: 3/4, 0.7, 0.72 comes from turning 3/4 into 0.34 by writing the numerator and the denominator as the two digits after the point, which makes the fraction the smallest of the three; 0.72, 3/4, 0.7 comes from the belief that the more digits a decimal has the smaller it must be, which puts both 0.72 and 0.75 below 0.7 and 0.72 below 0.75; 3/4, 0.72, 0.7 comes from comparing the three values correctly but listing them largest first, against an instruction to start with the smallest.
- (a) 1/3 — Method: find the total fraction eaten, then subtract it from the whole pizza. Working: together they eat 5/12 + 3/12 = 8/12, so the fraction left is 12/12 − 8/12 = 4/12 = 1/3. Answer: 1/3. 2/3 comes from giving the fraction eaten instead of the fraction left. 7/12 comes from only subtracting Ben's slices and forgetting Mia's. 1/2 comes from comparing the 4 slices left with the 8 slices eaten, 4/8, a part-to-part comparison instead of comparing with the whole pizza of 12 slices.
- (a) 18 minutes — Method: the buses leave together again after a number of minutes that is a multiple of both intervals, and the first such time is the lowest common multiple. Working: the multiples of 6 are 6, 12, 18, 24 … and the multiples of 9 are 9, 18, 27 … The first value in both lists is 18, which is 6 × 3 and 9 × 2. Answer: 18 minutes. The distractors: 54 minutes comes from multiplying 6 by 9, which does give a common multiple but not the lowest one; 3 minutes is the highest common factor of 6 and 9 rather than their lowest common multiple; 15 minutes comes from adding the two intervals together.
- (c) 31 — Method: work out each power separately, remembering that any non-zero base raised to the power 0 is 1 and a base raised to the power 1 is itself, then add the three values. Working: 5⁰ = 1, 5¹ = 5 and 5² = 25, so the total is 1 + 5 + 25 = 31. Answer: 31. The distractors: 30 comes from taking 5⁰ as 0 instead of 1; 35 comes from taking 5⁰ as 5, treating a zero index as leaving the base unchanged; 125 comes from adding the indices first, as though the three terms were being multiplied, and working out 5³.
- (a) 13/40 — Method: write the decimal over 1000 using its three decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.325 = 325/1000 = 13/40 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 25). Answer: 13/40. 13/4 comes from writing the decimal over 100 instead of 1000, as if there were only two decimal places. 8/25 comes from rounding 0.325 down to 0.32 before converting. 3/8 comes from recalling the learned conversion 3/8 = 0.375 and matching it to 0.325 because both are three-place decimals beginning with 3, instead of converting the decimal given.
- (b) 14.5 ≤ l < 15.5 — A measurement given to the nearest metre could have been rounded from anywhere up to half a metre below or above it: 15 − 0.5 = 14.5 and 15 + 0.5 = 15.5. Every value from 14.5 up to (but not reaching) 15.5 rounds to 15, so the error interval is 14.5 ≤ l < 15.5, with the lower bound included and the upper bound excluded. Making both ends strict, 14.5 < l < 15.5, wrongly excludes 14.5 itself, even though 14.5 does round to 15. Making both ends inclusive, 14.5 ≤ l ≤ 15.5, wrongly includes 15.5, which actually rounds up to 16, not 15. Using a whole metre either side instead of half a metre, giving 14 ≤ l < 16, comes from forgetting that the error is only half the rounding unit.
- (b) Yes, because 14.8 cm rounds to 15 cm to the nearest cm — Method: a recorded measurement is not an exact length; it stands for every length that rounds to it, so the two records agree if one rod can produce both. Working: Ben's record of 14.8 cm to the nearest 0.1 cm means the rod is between 14.75 cm and 14.85 cm, and 14.8 is nearer to 15 than to 14, so a rod of that length is recorded as 15 cm to the nearest centimetre. Both records can therefore come from the same rod. Answer: Yes, because 14.8 cm rounds to 15 cm to the nearest cm. The distractors: the claim that 14.8 cm rounds to 15.0 cm to 1 decimal place is false, since 14.8 cm is already written to 1 decimal place and stays 14.8 cm; the claim that it rounds to 14 cm is false, because 14.8 is 0.2 away from 15 and 0.8 away from 14; the claim that the two lengths are not the same treats each record as an exact length, when each is only a rounded record of one rod.
- (c) 150 — Since 90 students represent 3 of the 5 equal parts, one part is 90 ÷ 3 = 30, and the whole year group is five parts: 30 × 5 = 150. Applying the fraction forwards to 90 instead of reversing it, 90 × 3/5 = 54, treats the given number as the whole rather than as three fifths of it. Finding one part correctly as 30 but forgetting to scale up to the whole year group leaves 30 as the final answer. Treating 90 as the whole year group and adding on 2/5 of 90 for the students who do not walk, 90 + (90 × 2/5) = 126, applies the missing fraction to the wrong base amount.
- (a) 0.55, 58%, 3/5 — Converting all three to decimals: 3/5 = 0.6, 0.55 stays as 0.55, and 58% = 0.58. In order from smallest to largest, this is 0.55, then 58%, then 3/5. Writing the numbers in the reverse order, largest to smallest, gives 3/5, 58%, 0.55. Misconverting 3/5 as 0.5 instead of 0.6 makes it appear smaller than both other values, giving the order 3/5, 0.55, 58%. Misconverting 58% as 0.058 instead of 0.58, by moving the decimal point two extra places, makes it appear smallest of the three, giving the order 58%, 0.55, 3/5.
- (a) 8 — To undo 'multiply by 4, then add 8', reverse the operations in reverse order: subtract 8 first, then divide by 4. 40 − 8 = 32, and 32 ÷ 4 = 8, so the number is 8. A candidate who added 8 again instead of subtracting worked out 40 + 8 = 48, then 48 ÷ 4 = 12. A candidate who divided before subtracting, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out 40 ÷ 4 = 10, then 10 − 8 = 2. A candidate who multiplied instead of dividing at the last step worked out (40 − 8) × 4 = 32 × 4 = 128.
- (a) 2/11 — Let x = 0.18 recurring, so x = 0.181818... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 18.181818... . Subtracting the original x removes the recurring part, because the digits line up exactly: 100x − x = 18.181818... − 0.181818... = 18, so 99x = 18, giving x = 18/99 = 2/11. Treating the decimal as if it terminated at two places gives 18/100 = 9/50, which is only 0.18 and drops the repeating part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x — using 100x − 10x = 90x = 18 — is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit repeating block, and gives x = 18/90 = 1/5. Making an arithmetic slip in the numerator, 18 − 1 = 17 instead of 18, gives 17/99.
- (a) 3 — Method: the fourth root of a number is the positive value that gives that number when it is multiplied by itself four times. Working: 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16, which is too small, and 3 × 3 × 3 × 3 = 9 × 9 = 81. Answer: 3. The distractors: 9 comes from taking the square root of 81 instead of its fourth root; 4.5 comes from taking the square root and then halving it, as though a fourth root were half a square root; 20.25 comes from dividing 81 by 4, treating the root's index as a divisor.
- (c) 23.375 — The error intervals are 7.5 ≤ base < 8.5 and 4.5 ≤ height < 5.5. The upper bound of the area uses the upper bound of both the base and the height, then halves the product: 8.5 × 5.5 ÷ 2 = 23.375 cm². Using the lower bound of both dimensions instead, 7.5 × 4.5 ÷ 2 = 16.875, gives the lower bound of the area rather than the upper one. Multiplying the two upper bounds together but forgetting to halve for the triangle formula, 8.5 × 5.5 = 46.750, treats the triangle as if it were a rectangle. Using the given values directly without applying any bound at all, 8 × 5 ÷ 2 = 20.000, ignores that each rounded measurement has its own range of possible values.
- (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.
- (b) 1 : 2 — 2/5 of 50 is 20, so there are 20 red counters and 50 − 20 = 30 blue counters. Taking 5 red counters out leaves 15 red and 30 blue, so red : blue = 15 : 30. Dividing both parts by 15 gives 1 : 2. 2 : 3 is the ratio before any counters are removed, 2 : 1 has the two parts the wrong way round, and 4 : 5 comes from taking the 5 counters out of the blue instead of the red.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.