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) 11/12 — Convert both mixed numbers to improper fractions with a common denominator. 2 3/4 = 11/4, which is 33/12, and 1 5/6 = 11/6, which is 22/12. Subtracting, 33/12 − 22/12 gives 11/12, already in its simplest form. Forgetting to borrow, and instead subtracting the fraction parts the other way round to avoid a negative, 10/12 − 9/12 gives 1/12; adding that to the whole-number difference of 1 gives 13/12. Subtracting only the fraction parts, 9/12 − 10/12, and reporting just the size of that difference gives 1/12, which ignores the whole numbers altogether. Adding the two improper fractions instead of subtracting them, 33/12 + 22/12, gives 55/12. So 2 3/4 − 1 5/6 = 11/12.
- (b) £13.48 — Method: an amount of money is written to the nearest penny, which is 2 decimal places, so the calculator display has to be rounded to 2 decimal places. Working: 53.90 ÷ 4 = 13.475, and the digit in the third decimal place is 5, so the penny digit goes up from 7 to 8. Answer: £13.48. The distractors: £13.47 comes from chopping the third decimal place off instead of rounding with it; £13.50 comes from rounding to the nearest 10p rather than to the nearest penny; £13.40 comes from cutting the display short at 1 decimal place, which is both the wrong degree of accuracy and a truncation rather than a rounding.
- (a) 2/5 — The ratio 2:3 has 2 + 3 = 5 parts in total, and the larger plot is 3 of those parts. Since the larger plot is 18 m², each part is 18 ÷ 3 = 6 m², so the total area is 5 × 6 = 30 m² and the smaller plot is 2 × 6 = 12 m². The fraction of the total area taken up by the smaller plot is 12/30, which simplifies to 2/5. Giving the fraction for the larger plot instead of the smaller one gives 3/5. Comparing the smaller plot to the larger plot instead of to the total area gives 2/3. Assuming the two plots split the area evenly, ignoring the given ratio altogether, gives 1/2.
- (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.
- (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.
- (a) 3.84 × 10⁵ — 384,000 = 3.84 × 100,000 = 3.84 × 10⁵, with the decimal point moved five places and the coefficient kept between 1 and 10. Moving the point six places instead of five gives 3.84 × 10⁶, ten times too large. Leaving the coefficient as 38.4 gives 38.4 × 10⁴, which is not between 1 and 10. Using a negative exponent instead of a positive one gives 3.84 × 10⁻⁵, a number far smaller than 1.
- (c) −28 — 6² = 36 and 4³ = 64. Work out 36 − 64 = −28. A candidate who subtracts in the wrong order gets 64 − 36 = 28. A candidate who adds instead of subtracting gets 36 + 64 = 100. A candidate who multiplies the base by the exponent instead of raising the power (6 × 2 − 4 × 3 = 12 − 12) gets 0.
- (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.
- (c) 5 × 10⁶ — Method: standard form is written as A × 10ⁿ, where A is at least 1 and less than 10 and n counts the places the decimal point moves. Working: the digits of 5,000,000 give a coefficient of A = 5, and the decimal point travels from the end of 5,000,000 until it sits just after the 5, a move of 6 places, so n = 6. Answer: 5 × 10⁶. The distractors: 50 × 10⁵ comes from stopping before the coefficient has been brought into range, and 50 is not less than 10, so it is not standard form; 5 × 10⁷ comes from counting the seven digits of 5,000,000 instead of the six places the decimal point moves; 5 × 10⁻⁶ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left, when a negative index belongs to a number smaller than 1.
- (a) 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78% — Method: convert every value to a decimal, then order the decimals from largest to smallest. Working: 7/8 = 0.875, 17/20 = 0.85, 0.8 = 0.8, 78% = 0.78. Ordering from largest to smallest gives 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78%. Answer: 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78%. '78%, 0.8, 17/20, 7/8' comes from ordering the converted decimals from smallest to largest instead of largest to smallest. '17/20, 7/8, 0.8, 78%' comes from converting 17/20 incorrectly as larger than 7/8, for example treating 17/20 as 0.87 instead of 0.85, swapping the top two. '7/8, 0.8, 17/20, 78%' comes from converting 17/20 incorrectly as equal to 0.8, swapping the middle two.
- (a) 40 — Multiply the number of choices for each item: 4 × 5 × 2 = 40. 11 comes from adding the three numbers instead of multiplying them. 20 comes from multiplying only the crisps and chocolate bars, 4 × 5, and forgetting the drink. 10 comes from multiplying only the chocolate bars and drinks, 5 × 2, and forgetting the crisps.
- (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) £120 — Total parts = 5 + 3 = 8, so one part is worth 320 ÷ 8 = 40 pounds. The cake sale is 3 parts, so it raised 3 × 40 = 120 pounds. £200 comes from working out the raffle's share, 5 × 40, instead of the cake sale's share. £40 comes from finding the value of one part but forgetting to multiply by 3. £192 comes from dividing the total by 5 instead of 8 to find the value of one part, 320 ÷ 5 = 64, then multiplying by 3, 3 × 64 = 192.
- (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.
- (c) 0.001 — Method: a negative index means 'one over' the positive power, so $10^{-3}$ means one over $10^{3}$. Working: ten cubed is 1000, and one over 1000 is 0.001. 1000 comes from ignoring the negative sign and working out ten cubed instead of its reciprocal. −1000 comes from ignoring what the negative index does to the size, while still writing a negative sign on the large value. −0.001 comes from correctly finding the size, 0.001, but wrongly keeping a negative sign because the index was negative. Answer: 0.001.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.