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) 4.1 × 10³, 3.2 × 10⁴, 2.9 × 10⁵ — The exponent decides the size first: 10³ is smaller than 10⁴, which is smaller than 10⁵, so the order is 4.1 × 10³, then 3.2 × 10⁴, then 2.9 × 10⁵. Reversing the whole list gives largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. Comparing 3.2 × 10⁴ and 4.1 × 10³ by their coefficients alone, 3.2 against 4.1, and swapping them ignores that 10⁴ is bigger than 10³ regardless of the coefficient. Comparing 2.9 × 10⁵ and 3.2 × 10⁴ by their coefficients alone and swapping them makes the same mistake at the top of the list.
- (c) 693 — Method: multiplying a bracket by a number multiplies every term inside it, so 7 × (100 − 1) = 7 × 100 − 7 × 1. Working: 7 × 100 = 700 and 7 × 1 = 7, so the calculation becomes 700 − 7 = 693. Answer: 693. The distractors: 699 comes from subtracting the 1 itself rather than 7 lots of it, giving 700 − 1 = 699; 707 comes from adding the second product instead of subtracting it, giving 700 + 7 = 707; 700 comes from rounding 99 up to 100 and then offering the estimate 7 × 100 as an exact value.
- (b) No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap — Method: each recorded jump stands for the lengths within half of 0.1 m, that is 0.05 m, of the figure recorded, and Priya is right only if the two ranges overlap. Working: Priya's jump is at least 3.8 − 0.05 = 3.75 m and below 3.85 m, because a jump of 3.85 m would have been recorded as 3.9 m; Nadia's jump is at least 3.85 m and below 3.9 + 0.05 = 3.95 m. Every length Priya could have jumped is below 3.85 m and every length Nadia could have jumped is at least 3.85 m, so Nadia jumped further whatever the exact lengths were. Answer: No — their possible jump lengths do not overlap. The distractors: the reason that a recorded jump is exactly the length jumped reaches the same verdict by treating a rounded record as exact, which is the idea this question tests; both jumps being 3.85 m would put 3.85 m inside Priya's range, when a jump of that length is recorded as 3.9 m; Priya jumping up to 3.9 m goes a whole 0.1 m above her record instead of half of it.
- (a) 40 — Method: a number is odd exactly when its units digit is odd, so the restricted position is filled first and the two free positions are then filled from the digits that are left, multiplying the number of choices at each stage. Working: of the six digits only 3 and 9 are odd, so there are 2 choices for the units digit; once that digit has been used, 5 digits remain for the hundreds position and then 4 remain for the tens position, so the count is 2 × 5 × 4 = 40. Answer: 40. The distractors: 120 comes from ignoring the word odd altogether and counting every three-digit number that can be made from the six digits, 6 × 5 × 4; 60 comes from filling the hundreds and tens positions first, 6 then 5, and only then allowing 2 odd digits for the units position, which overcounts because one of 3 and 9 may already have been used, giving 6 × 5 × 2; 72 comes from restricting the units digit to 3 or 9 correctly but overlooking the condition that no digit may be used twice, so all six digits are still counted as available for each of the other two positions, giving 2 × 6 × 6.
- (b) £8 — Rounding to 1 significant figure: £1.85 rounds to £2, and 3.6 kg rounds to 4 kg. The estimate is £2 × 4 = £8. A candidate who used the unrounded values instead of estimating worked out 1.85 × 3.6 = £6.66. A candidate who rounded only the mass and used the exact price worked out 1.85 × 4 = £7.40. A candidate who rounded the price to the nearest 10p instead of 1 significant figure worked out 1.9 × 4 = £7.60.
- (b) 4.05 — Method: line up the decimal points (or place value columns) before adding. Working: 3.60 + 0.45 = 4.05. Answer: 4.05. 3.65 is Priya's answer, from adding the digits without lining up the place value columns, which effectively treats 0.45 as 0.05. 4.5 comes from rounding both numbers up first, 3.6 to 4 and 0.45 to 0.5, and adding those instead of adding the exact values. 0.81 comes from adding the digits 36 and 45 together to get 81, then placing the decimal point in the wrong position.
- (b) 7 — Method: trap the number between the two square numbers on either side of it, then decide which of them it is nearer to. Working: 6² = 36 and 7² = 49, so √45 lies between 6 and 7; 49 − 45 = 4 while 45 − 36 = 9, so 45 is nearer to 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 6 comes from taking the square number below 45 and stopping there, without checking which of 36 and 49 is nearer; 22.5 comes from halving 45 instead of looking for the number that multiplies by itself to give 45; 2,025 comes from squaring 45 instead of taking its square root.
- (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) 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.
- (d) 6,000,000 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, then subtract. Working: 8,340,000 rounds to 8,000,000 (1 s.f.); 1,950,000 rounds to 2,000,000 (1 s.f.); 8,000,000 − 2,000,000 = 6,000,000. Answer: 6,000,000. 6,390,000 is the exact difference, found without rounding the numbers first. 8,000,000 comes from rounding the population correctly but forgetting to subtract the capital's population at all. 6,300,000 comes from rounding 8,340,000 to the nearest hundred thousand, 8,300,000, instead of to 1 significant figure, then subtracting the correctly rounded 2,000,000.
- (b) 2.1 m — The three pieces use 3 × 0.9 = 2.7 m of wood. Remaining wood = 4.8 − 2.7 = 2.1 m. A candidate who miscounts and only subtracts 2 pieces instead of 3 gets 4.8 − 1.8 = 3.0 m. A candidate who adds instead of subtracting gets 4.8 + 2.7 = 7.5 m. A candidate who gives the length used instead of the length remaining gets 2.7 m.
- (d) −1.7 — Since the numbers have different signs, find the difference between their sizes: 4.5 − 2.8 = 1.7, then keep the sign of the number further from zero. So −4.5 + 2.8 = −1.7. A candidate who drops the negative sign gets 1.7. A candidate who adds the magnitudes instead of finding the difference gets −(4.5 + 2.8) = −7.3. A candidate who takes the smaller digit from the larger in the tenths column, doing 8 − 5 = 3 instead of borrowing to make 15 − 8 = 7, gets 2.3 and so −2.3.
- (d) 1 7/12 — Method: convert both mixed numbers to improper fractions with a common denominator, then subtract. Working: 3 1/4 = 39/12 and 1 2/3 = 20/12, so 39/12 − 20/12 = 19/12 = 1 7/12. Answer: 1 7/12. Chloe's method, subtracting whole numbers (3−1=2) and fraction parts (2/3−1/4=5/12) separately without exchanging, gives 2 5/12. 1 3/4 comes from converting 2/3 to twelfths incorrectly as 6/12 instead of 8/12, then subtracting. 8 comes from converting both mixed numbers to improper fractions correctly (13/4 and 5/3) but then subtracting numerators and denominators separately: (13−5)/(4−3) = 8/1.
- (d) 360 km — Method: first find the kilometres per litre by dividing distance by fuel used, then multiply this rate by the new tank size. Working: 180 ÷ 6 = 30 km per litre; 30 × 12 = 360 km. Answer: 360 km. 30 km comes from finding the correct fuel consumption but stopping there, without scaling it up to the full tank. 2160 km comes from multiplying the original distance (180) by the tank size (12) directly, skipping the unit rate. 90 km comes from pairing the numbers the wrong way round: dividing the distance by the new tank size, 180 ÷ 12 = 15, and then multiplying by the original 6 litres, 15 × 6 = 90.
- (b) 20 — Each length has its own error interval: 11.5 ≤ a < 12.5 and 6.5 ≤ b < 7.5. The upper bound of a sum is found by adding the upper bounds of both quantities: 12.5 + 7.5 = 20. Bounding only one of the two lengths and adding the other quantity's given value unbounded, 12.5 + 7 = 19.5, misses that both measurements carry their own uncertainty. Adding the lower bounds instead of the upper bounds, 11.5 + 6.5 = 18, gives the lower bound of the sum, not the upper one. Using a whole centimetre of error either side instead of half a centimetre, (12 + 1) + (7 + 1) = 21, comes from forgetting the error is half the rounding unit.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.