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
- (b) 30 — 70 is close to the perfect square 64, so √70 ≈ 8. 65 is close to the perfect cube 64, so ∛65 ≈ 4. Multiplying these estimates: 8 × 4 = 32, which rounds to 30 to 1 significant figure. Estimating ∛65 as 5 instead of 4, perhaps by confusing it with the nearby cube 125 = 5³ rather than the much closer 64 = 4³, and then multiplying by 8, gives 8 × 5 = 40. Adding the two estimates instead of multiplying them, 8 + 4 = 12, rounds to 10 to 1 significant figure. Rounding both estimates up to the next whole number using the wrong nearby power for each, taking √70 as 9 and ∛65 as 5, gives 9 × 5 = 45, which rounds to 50 to 1 significant figure.
- (d) 0.3 — Converting the fractions to decimals, 1/4 = 0.25 and 2/5 = 0.4, so any decimal between 0.25 and 0.4 is a valid answer, and 0.3 fits. Confusing 1/4 with 1/5 and converting it as 0.2 instead of 0.25 gives a value below the true lower bound. Confusing 2/5 with 1/2 and converting it as 0.5 instead of 0.4 gives a value above the true upper bound. Converting the fractions correctly but choosing a decimal above the true upper bound of 0.4 instead of between the two values gives 0.45.
- (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) 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.
- (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) 590 — To round to the nearest 10, decide which multiple of 10 the number is nearer to. 592.5 lies between 590 and 600. It is 592.5 − 590 = 2.5 above 590, but 600 − 592.5 = 7.5 below 600, so it is much nearer to 590. Equivalently, the units digit is 2, and 2 is less than 5, so round down: 592.5 rounds to 590. A candidate who wrote 600 rounded up because of the 5 in the tenths place, but that digit decides rounding to the nearest whole number, not to the nearest 10 — the units digit is what matters here. A candidate who wrote 595 rounded to the nearest 5 instead of the nearest 10. A candidate who wrote 500 cut the number down to its hundreds digit instead of rounding to the nearest 10.
- (d) £143 — From 09:15 to 12:45 is 3 hours 30 minutes, which is 3.5 hours. The charge for the time is 3.5 × £28 = £98, and the call-out fee is added on once: £98 + £45 = £143. £98 leaves out the call-out fee altogether, £129 charges for 3 hours instead of 3.5 hours, and £255.50 adds the fee to the hourly rate before multiplying, which charges the £45 for every hour.
- (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.
- (d) 3√5 — Split 45 into a perfect square times a factor: 45 = 9 × 5. Take the square root of each part separately: √45 = √9 × √5 = 3√5, since √9 = 3. Writing the perfect-square factor itself (9) as the coefficient instead of its root would give 9√5 — that trap comes from forgetting the last step, rooting 9. Multiplying 3 and 5 together instead of keeping them as coefficient and radicand gives 15, which throws away the surd entirely. Doubling the correct coefficient by mistake gives 6√5.
- (b) −18 — Method: the multiplication is carried out before the addition, and a negative multiplied by a positive is negative. Working: (−4) × 3 = −12, so the calculation becomes (−6) + (−12) = −18. Answer: −18. The distractors: −30 comes from adding first and multiplying afterwards, giving (−6 + −4) × 3 = −10 × 3 = −30; 6 comes from treating (−4) × 3 as +12 on the grounds that a minus sign makes a product positive, giving −6 + 12 = 6; 18 comes from ignoring both minus signs and working out 6 + 4 × 3 = 18.
- (b) 1.45 ≤ m < 1.55 — The flour's mass is labelled 1.5 kg, correct to the nearest 0.1 kg, so half of 0.1 kg is added to and subtracted from 1.5 kg to find the interval: 1.5 − 0.05 = 1.45 and 1.5 + 0.05 = 1.55, giving 1.45 ≤ m < 1.55. '1.4 ≤ m < 1.6' comes from taking the whole 0.1 kg as the margin either side, instead of half of it. '1.45 < m ≤ 1.55' comes from writing the inequality signs the wrong way round — the lower bound should be included and the upper bound excluded, not the other way round. '1.45 ≤ m ≤ 1.55' comes from including the upper bound, when the convention is that the upper bound is never actually reached.
- (b) 5.2 × 10⁶ — Method: write the digits as a coefficient that is at least 1 and less than 10, then count the places the decimal point moves to reach that position. Working: the digits give a coefficient of 5.2, and the decimal point travels from the end of 5,200,000 until it sits between the 5 and the 2, a move of 6 places. Answer: 5.2 × 10⁶. The distractors: 52 × 10⁵ is the same amount but not in standard form, because 52 is not less than 10; 5.2 × 10⁵ comes from counting the five zeros in 5,200,000 rather than the six places the decimal point moves; 5.2 × 10⁻⁶ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left.
- (c) > — Method: write both fractions with a common denominator so they can be compared directly. Working: −2/3 = −4/6. Comparing −4/6 and −5/6, −4 is greater than −5, so −4/6 is greater than −5/6. Answer: −2/3 > −5/6, so the symbol is >. < comes from treating the fraction with the larger numerator and denominator, 5/6, as the greater number, ignoring that both fractions are negative. = comes from assuming the fractions must be equal because they look similar in size. ≤ combines < (false) with = (false).
- (b) £220 — Method: round each ticket price to the nearest £5, multiply each rounded price by the number of tickets, then add the two totals. Working: the adult price £38.50 rounds to £40, and 4 × £40 = £160; the child price £19.75 rounds to £20, and 3 × £20 = £60; £160 + £60 = £220. Answer: £220. £213.25 is the exact total cost, found without rounding the prices first, so it is not an estimate. £160 comes from including the cost of the adult tickets only and forgetting the three children's tickets. £200 comes from swapping the two ticket quantities, using 3 adults and 4 children instead of 4 adults and 3 children.
- (c) 8,000,000,000 — Method: a power of ten is 1 followed by that many zeros, so 8 × 10⁹ is 8 multiplied by 1 followed by nine zeros. Working: 10⁹ = 1,000,000,000, and 8 × 1,000,000,000 puts an 8 in front of those nine zeros. Answer: 8,000,000,000. The distractors: 800,000,000 comes from writing nine digits altogether instead of nine zeros after the 8; 720 comes from reading 10⁹ as 10 × 9 = 90 and then working out 8 × 90; 0.000000008 comes from treating the index as negative and carrying the decimal point nine places to the left.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.