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
- (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
- (d) 7/20 — Method: write the decimal over the power of ten that matches the number of digits after the point, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.35 has two digits after the point, so it is 35 hundredths and can be written as 35/100; the highest common factor of 35 and 100 is 5, and 35 ÷ 5 = 7 with 100 ÷ 5 = 20. Answer: 7/20. The distractors: 3/10 comes from reading only the first digit after the point and converting 0.3; 7/25 comes from dividing the numerator by 5 but the denominator by 4, using a different factor on the top and on the bottom; 35/10 comes from counting one decimal place instead of two and writing the digits over 10.
- (d) 10 — Method: list the pairs systematically, taking each sweet in turn and pairing it only with the sweets that come after it, so that no pair is written down twice. Working: numbering the sweets 1 to 5, the first sweet pairs with 4 others, the second pairs with 3 sweets that come after it, the third with 2 and the fourth with 1, so the total is 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 20 comes from working out 5 × 4 and never halving, which counts each pair twice, once in each order; 25 comes from working out 5 × 5, which allows the same sweet to be chosen twice; 9 comes from adding the 5 choices and the 4 remaining choices instead of combining them as a selection of two.
- (a) to the nearest centimetre — Method: the error interval of a rounded measurement runs from half a unit below the stated value to half a unit above it, so the width of the interval is one whole unit of the accuracy used. Working: the interval runs from 24.5 to 25.5, a width of 25.5 − 24.5 = 1, so the unit of accuracy is 1 cm; the stated value is the midpoint, 25 cm, and 25 correct to the nearest centimetre is exactly what gives 24.5 ≤ L < 25.5. Answer: to the nearest centimetre. To the nearest 0.5 cm comes from reading the half-unit, 0.5, as the accuracy itself instead of doubling it back to the full unit. To 1 decimal place comes from seeing the bounds written with one decimal place and taking that as the accuracy, but the bounds of a value given to 1 decimal place would be only 0.05 either side. To the nearest 10 cm comes from confusing the size of the value, about 25, with the unit it was rounded to; rounding to the nearest 10 cm would give an interval 5 cm either side of the stated value.
- (a) 2 × 3² × 5 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number until only prime factors remain. Working: 90 ÷ 2 = 45, 45 ÷ 3 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 90 = 2 × 3 × 3 × 5, written as 2 × 3² × 5. 2 × 3 × 15 stops before the 15 is broken down into 3 × 5, so it is not fully factorised. 3 × 3 × 10 stops before the 10 is broken down into 2 × 5. 2 × 45 stops after only one division. Answer: 2 × 3² × 5.
- (c) 3⁻³ — Method: when dividing powers of the same base, subtract the index of the number you are dividing by from the index of the number being divided, keeping them in the order the question writes them. Working: 2 − 5 = −3, so 3² ÷ 3⁵ = 3⁻³. It is worth checking this against the numbers: 3² = 9 and 3⁵ = 243, and 9 ÷ 243 = 1/27, which is 3⁻³. 3³ comes from subtracting the other way round, 5 − 2 = 3, which reverses the sign of the index and gives 27 instead of 1/27. 3⁷ comes from working out 2 + 5 = 7, which is the rule for multiplying powers, not dividing them. 3¹⁰ comes from multiplying the indices, 2 × 5 = 10, instead of subtracting them. Answer: 3⁻³.
- (a) 56 — Method: count the ordered selections with the product rule first, then divide by the number of different orders in which any one committee could have been picked. Working: there are 8 choices for a first pupil, 7 for a second and 6 for a third, giving 8 × 7 × 6 = 336 ordered selections; any particular three pupils could have been picked in 3 × 2 × 1 = 6 orders, so the number of different committees is 336 ÷ 6 = 56. Answer: 56. The distractors: 336 comes from stopping at 8 × 7 × 6 and treating the three places as distinct posts when they are identical; 168 comes from dividing that product by 2 rather than by the 6 orders in which three chosen pupils can be listed; 24 comes from multiplying the 8 volunteers by the 3 places instead of multiplying the choices at each stage.
- (b) Chloe's estimate — √70 = 8.3666... to 4 decimal places. Comparing each estimate against this: Ben's 8.3 is 0.0666 away; Chloe's 8.4 is only 0.0334 away; Dan's 8.9 is 0.5334 away; Ella's 8.5 is 0.1334 away. Chloe's estimate is closest, because her method tests an actual calculation, 8.5² = 72.25, sees that it overshoots 70, and corrects slightly downward from it, rather than only comparing which perfect square is nearer. Ben's sharing-out is not a bad idea in itself — 70 sits 6 of the way along the 17 from 64 to 81, so 'about a third of the way' from 8 to 9 points at roughly 8.35 — but he then rounds that position down to 8.3, and it is that rounding, not the sharing-out, that leaves him twice as far from √70 as Chloe. Dan's claim that 81 is closer to 70 than 64 is is backwards: 70 − 64 = 6, while 81 − 70 = 11, so 64 is in fact the nearer square, which makes his estimate of 8.9 the furthest from the truth of all four. Ella's plain midpoint of 8 and 9 tests nothing at all: √70 does not sit halfway between 8 and 9, and her 8.5 lands further from √70 than Chloe's checked estimate does.
- (c) (12 + 3π) cm — The perimeter of a quarter-circle is made up of two straight radii plus a quarter of the circumference. The two radii give 2 × 6 = 12 cm, and a quarter of the circumference is (1/4) × 2 × π × 6 = 3π cm, so the total perimeter is (12 + 3π) cm. Giving only the curved part, 3π cm, forgets the two straight edges entirely. Using the full circumference, 2 × π × 6 = 12π, instead of a quarter of it gives (12 + 12π) cm. Including only one radius instead of two gives (6 + 3π) cm.
- (a) 12 — Method: for any two numbers, their highest common factor multiplied by their lowest common multiple equals the product of the two numbers. This holds because the HCF collects every prime factor the two numbers share, and the LCM collects every prime factor that appears in either number, so between them they use each prime factor of the two numbers exactly once — the same primes as the product. Working: 4 × 60 = 240, and 240 ÷ 20 = 12. 15 comes from working out 60 ÷ 4 = 15, dividing the wrong pair of numbers. 16 comes from working out 20 − 4 = 16, subtracting the highest common factor instead of using the product rule. 240 is 4 × 60, the product of the highest common factor and the lowest common multiple, left un-divided by 20. Answer: 12.
- (a) 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25 — Rounding to 1 decimal place means the error interval spans half of 0.1, so 0.05, either side of 8.2: 8.2 − 0.05 = 8.15 and 8.2 + 0.05 = 8.25. The lower bound uses ≤ because 8.15 itself rounds to 8.2, but the upper bound uses < because 8.25 would round up to 8.3. So the error interval is 8.15 ≤ y < 8.25. A candidate who used the wrong rounding band gave 8.1 ≤ y < 8.2. A candidate who used a strict inequality at both ends wrote 8.15 < y < 8.25, wrongly excluding 8.15 itself. A candidate who added the full 0.1 instead of half of it wrote 8.2 ≤ y < 8.3.
- (b) 3/5 — Method: add all three parts for the total, add together the parts that are not green, then write this over the total. Working: total parts = 4 + 5 + 6 = 15. Not green = 4 + 5 = 9. Fraction = 9/15 = 3/5. Answer: 3/5. 2/5 comes from finding the fraction that IS green (6/15 = 2/5) instead of not green. 4/15 comes from only counting the red baubles as 'not green' and forgetting the gold ones. 9/10 comes from adding only two of the three ratio parts to find the total (4+6=10), missing out the gold part, while still using 9 for the numerator.
- (c) 20p — Turn each price into the same rate before comparing. The small bag is 400 g = 0.4 kg, so it costs £1.12 ÷ 0.4 = £2.80 per kg. The large bag costs £3.90 ÷ 1.5 = £2.60 per kg. The saving is £2.80 − £2.60 = £0.20, which is 20p per kg. 2p compares the prices per 100 g rather than per kilogram, £2.78 subtracts one bag price from the other without turning either into a rate, and £2.60 is the large bag's price per kilogram rather than the saving.
- (b) (2 + 3) × 5 − 1 — 2 + 3 = 5, then 5 × 5 = 25, then 25 − 1 = 24, so the brackets belong around 2 + 3. Placing them around 5 − 1 instead gives 5 − 1 = 4, then 3 × 4 = 12, then 2 + 12 = 14. Leaving the multiplication bracketed instead changes nothing, because it already had priority: 3 × 5 = 15, then 2 + 15 = 17, then 17 − 1 = 16. Bracketing both 2 + 3 and 5 − 1 uses two pairs instead of the one asked for: 2 + 3 = 5, 5 − 1 = 4, then 5 × 4 = 20.
- (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.