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) 3 or −5 — Method: a point a fixed distance from another can lie on either side of it, so move the given distance in each direction from the starting point. Working: moving 4 units to the right gives −1 + 4 = 3, and moving 4 units to the left gives −1 − 4 = −5. Answer: 3 or −5. The distractors: 5 or −3 comes from starting at 1 instead of −1, giving 1 + 4 and 1 − 4; 3 only comes from moving to the right and forgetting that the point could lie to the left as well; 4 or −4 comes from measuring the distance from zero instead of from point A, which just repeats the given distance.
- (a) x¹¹ — Method: when multiplying powers of the same base, add the indices. Working: 7 + 4 = 11, so x⁷ × x⁴ = x¹¹. x²⁸ comes from multiplying the indices, 7 × 4 = 28, instead of adding them. x³ comes from working out 7 − 4 = 3, which is the rule for dividing powers, not multiplying them. 11x comes from adding the indices to make 11 but then treating x as a coefficient instead of a power. Answer: x¹¹.
- (c) 2700 cm² — Convert both lengths to the same unit before multiplying: 0.6 m = 60 cm. The area is 45 × 60 = 2700 cm². Multiplying without converting 0.6 m to centimetres at all, treating it as 0.6 cm, gives 45 × 0.6 = 27 cm². Converting 0.6 m to centimetres by multiplying by 10 instead of 100 gives 6 cm, and 45 × 6 = 270 cm². Converting 0.6 m to centimetres by multiplying by 1000 instead of 100 gives 600 cm, and 45 × 600 = 27000 cm².
- (a) 1/2 — The ratio 1:2:3 has 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts in total. Amir and Bo together receive 1 + 2 = 3 of those parts, so together they receive 3/6 of the £60, which simplifies to 1/2. Using only Amir's single part, 1/6, ignores Bo's share entirely. Adding Bo's and Chen's parts instead of Amir's and Bo's, 2 + 3 = 5, gives 5/6. Comparing Amir and Bo's 3 parts to Chen's 3 parts, rather than to the total of 6 parts, gives 3/3 = 1.
- (a) 23 — Division undoes multiplication, so the missing number is 391 ÷ 17 = 23. Writing down 17 repeats the number already given instead of solving for the missing one. Subtracting instead of dividing gives 391 − 17 = 374. Multiplying instead of dividing gives 391 × 17 = 6647.
- (c) 7/30 — Let x = 0.2333... . Because only the 3 recurs, use two multiples of x that line up the recurring part exactly: 10x = 2.333... and 100x = 23.333... . Subtracting removes the recurring tail completely: 100x − 10x = 23.333... − 2.333... = 21, so 90x = 21, giving x = 21/90 = 7/30. Treating the decimal as if it terminated after two places, writing 0.23 as 23/100, ignores that the 3 carries on forever. Misreading which digits recur — treating 0.2333... as if the block '23' repeated, giving 0.232323... — leads to x = 23/99, which is a different, larger recurring decimal from the one given. A numerator slip in the subtraction, computing 22 instead of 21, gives x = 22/90 = 11/45.
- (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.
- (a) 2² × 3 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime that goes in, until 1 is reached, then write the primes used as a product with indices. Working: 12 ÷ 2 = 6, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 3 ÷ 3 = 1, so the primes used are 2, 2 and 3, which is written as 2² × 3. Answer: 2² × 3. The distractors: 2 × 6 comes from stopping at the first factor pair without splitting the 6, which is not prime; 2 × 3 comes from listing each prime once and losing the repeat, and it multiplies to 6 rather than 12; 2 × 3² puts the index on the wrong prime and multiplies to 18.
- (c) x⁽²⁄³⁾ — Method: a root can be written as a fractional index, with the root's index as the denominator and the power inside the root as the numerator. Working: the cube root gives a denominator of 3 and the square inside gives a numerator of 2, so ∛(x²) = x⁽²⁄³⁾. Answer: x⁽²⁄³⁾. The distractors: x⁽³⁄²⁾ comes from writing the fraction upside down, with the root's index on top; x⁽¹⁄⁶⁾ comes from treating the square as a second root and multiplying 1/3 by 1/2; x⁶ comes from multiplying the root's index by the power, 3 × 2, and keeping the result as a whole-number index.
- (d) 5 — Method: the greatest number of identical bunches is the highest common factor of the two flower totals; then divide the red roses by that number of bunches. Working: 60 = 2² × 3 × 5 and 84 = 2² × 3 × 7, so their highest common factor is 2² × 3 = 12. That means 12 bunches, and 60 ÷ 12 = 5 red roses in each. 7 is the number of white roses in each bunch, since 84 ÷ 12 = 7, not red roses. 12 is the number of bunches itself, not the number of red roses in one bunch. 20 comes from working out 60 ÷ 3 = 20, dividing by only part of the highest common factor. Answer: 5.
- (b) 750,000,000 — Method: multiplying by 10⁸ moves the decimal point eight places to the right, and every empty place is filled with a zero. Working: 10⁸ = 100,000,000, and moving the decimal point in 7.5 eight places to the right gives 7.5 × 100,000,000. Answer: 750,000,000. The distractors: 7,500,000,000 comes from removing the decimal point first to make 75 and then writing eight zeros after it, which carries the digits one place too far; 600 comes from reading 10⁸ as 10 × 8 = 80 and working out 7.5 × 80; 0.000000075 comes from moving the decimal point eight places to the left, as though the index were negative.
- (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
- (b) 2² × 3 × 5 — Repeatedly divide 60 by prime numbers: 60 ÷ 2 = 30, 30 ÷ 2 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is itself prime. So 60 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 5, which in index notation is 2² × 3 × 5. Stopping the factor tree after only three divisions and writing 2 × 3 × 5 misses that the 2 divides in twice, and gives only 30, not 60. Squaring the 3 as well as the 2 gives 2² × 3² × 5, which comes to 180, far too big. Squaring the 5 instead of the 2 gives 2 × 3 × 5², which comes to 150, also too big. So 60 = 2² × 3 × 5.
- (a) 20 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then divide the rounded values. Working: 588 rounds to 600 (1 s.f.) and 31 rounds to 30 (1 s.f.). 600 ÷ 30 = 20. Answer: 20. 17 comes from cutting 588 down to 500, keeping the leading digit as it stands instead of rounding it up to 1 significant figure, 600, then dividing by the correctly rounded 30. 200 comes from misreading the rounded divisor 30 as 3, giving 600 ÷ 3 instead of 600 ÷ 30. 19 is the exact value of 588 ÷ 31 rounded to the nearest whole number, found without rounding the numbers first.
- (a) 42.5 ≤ t < 47.5 — Rounding to the nearest 5 minutes means the actual time can be up to half of 5 minutes, 2.5 minutes, below or above 45 before it would round to a different multiple of 5. The lower bound is 45 − 2.5 = 42.5 and the upper bound is 45 + 2.5 = 47.5. A time of exactly 47.5 minutes would round up to 50, not 45, so 47.5 is excluded while 42.5 does still round to 45. Writing 42.5 ≤ t ≤ 47.5 wrongly includes 47.5. Writing 40 ≤ t < 50 uses a whole rounding unit, 5, either side instead of half of it. Writing 44.5 ≤ t < 45.5 treats the rounding unit as 1 minute instead of 5 minutes.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.