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) 2/5 — The statement compares girls with boys, so girls : boys = 2 : 3. The club is therefore 2 + 3 = 5 equal shares and the girls take 2 of them, so 2/5 of the members are girls. 2/3 repeats the part-to-part fraction the question gives, 3/5 is the fraction that are boys, and 1/3 comes from treating 2/3 as a fraction of the whole club and taking what is left.
- (b) 1 — Method: BIDMAS deals with the index before the subtraction, and a negative number multiplied by itself gives a positive result. Working: (−2)² = (−2) × (−2) = 4, so the calculation becomes 4 − 3 = 1. Answer: 1. The distractors: −7 comes from squaring only the 2 and leaving the minus sign outside the index, giving −(2²) − 3 = −4 − 3 = −7; −1 comes from subtracting the square from 3 instead of 3 from the square, giving 3 − 4 = −1; 25 comes from carrying out the subtraction before the index, giving (−2 − 3)² = (−5)² = 25.
- (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.
- (a) 4 + √6 — Multiply top and bottom by the conjugate, 4 + √6. The denominator becomes (4 − √6)(4 + √6) = 4² − (√6)² = 16 − 6 = 10. The numerator becomes 10 × (4 + √6) = 40 + 10√6. So the fraction is (40 + 10√6)/10 = 4 + √6, since both terms in the numerator divide by 10. Distributing the conjugate to only the whole-number term of the numerator, and forgetting the surd term entirely, leaves just 4. Rationalising by multiplying the numerator by the conjugate but leaving the ORIGINAL denominator's sign unchanged instead of squaring it lands on 4 − √6, with the surd's sign never actually flipping to positive. Dividing only the whole-number part of the numerator by 10 and forgetting to divide the surd term too leaves 4 + 10√6.
- (b) 0.3, 32%, 7/20 — Method: convert every number to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale. Working: 7/20 = 0.35, 0.3 stays as 0.3, and 32% = 0.32. Comparing 0.3, 0.32 and 0.35 in size gives the order 0.3, then 0.32, then 0.35. Answer: 0.3, 32%, 7/20. 7/20, 32%, 0.3 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. 0.3, 7/20, 32% swaps 32% and 7/20, treating the fraction 7/20 as smaller even though 7/20 = 0.35 is bigger than 32% = 0.32. 32%, 0.3, 7/20 comes from moving the digits one place too far when converting the percentage, giving 0.032 instead of 0.32, which makes 32% look far smaller than it really is.
- (b) −5 — Using the order of operations, work out the multiplication first: 4 × (−2) = −8. Then 3 + (−8) = −5. A candidate who adds before multiplying gets (3 + 4) × (−2) = −14. A candidate who drops the negative sign on the multiplication gets 3 + 4 × 2 = 11. A candidate who works out the multiplication correctly but gives that as the final answer, forgetting to combine it with the 3, gets −8.
- (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) 2, 3, 4, 5 — Method: work out which whole numbers satisfy both parts of the inequality. Working: n ≥ 2 means n can be 2 or more; n < 6 means n must be less than 6, so 6 itself is not included. The whole numbers that fit both conditions are 2, 3, 4 and 5. Answer: 2, 3, 4, 5. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 treats < 6 as ≤ 6 and wrongly includes 6. 3, 4, 5 treats ≥ 2 as > 2 and wrongly leaves out 2. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 wrongly includes 1, which does not satisfy n ≥ 2.
- (c) 19 — Without any restriction there would be 5 × 4 = 20 different sandwiches. The restriction removes exactly one combination, cheese and mustard on gluten-free bread, so subtract 1: 20 − 1 = 19. 20 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 15 comes from removing the gluten-free bread altogether, as if none of the fillings were available on it, 5 × 3 = 15. 16 comes from removing the cheese and mustard filling completely, as if it were not available on any bread, 4 × 4 = 16.
- (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) 8 × 10³ — Method: divide the capacity of the card by the size of one photograph, dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices, then bring the coefficient back into the range 1 to 10. Working: 3.2 ÷ 4 = 0.8 and 10 − 6 = 4, which gives 0.8 × 10⁴; a coefficient of 0.8 is smaller than 1, so the decimal point moves one place to the right and the index falls by 1. Answer: 8 × 10³. The distractors: 8 × 10⁴ comes from correcting 0.8 to 8 without reducing the index, which makes the answer ten times too large; 1.28 × 10¹⁷ comes from multiplying the two numbers instead of dividing them, since 3.2 × 4 = 12.8 and 10 + 6 = 16; 8 × 10¹⁵ comes from dividing the coefficients but adding the indices instead of subtracting them.
- (d) 26 and 27 — Find the two consecutive perfect squares either side of 700: 26² = 676 and 27² = 729. Since 676 < 700 < 729, √700 lies between 26 and 27. Answering 7 and 8 comes from stripping the two zeros off 700 and using the 7 itself as the size of the root, instead of comparing 700 with the perfect squares around it — dividing the number under the root by 100 divides the root by 10, so the digits do not simply carry across. Answering 25 and 26 comes from checking 25² = 625, seeing that it is less than 700, and stopping there without also checking the square directly above it. Answering 35 and 36 comes from halving 700 to 350 and then treating that halved value as if it were ten times the true root, drifting into the thirties instead of the twenties.
- (a) 3 — Method: the fourth root of a number is the positive value that gives that number when it is multiplied by itself four times. Working: 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16, which is too small, and 3 × 3 × 3 × 3 = 9 × 9 = 81. Answer: 3. The distractors: 9 comes from taking the square root of 81 instead of its fourth root; 4.5 comes from taking the square root and then halving it, as though a fourth root were half a square root; 20.25 comes from dividing 81 by 4, treating the root's index as a divisor.
- (a) 8.35 ≤ L < 8.45 — Method: a length rounded to 1 decimal place lies within half of 0.1 cm, that is 0.05 cm, of the value written down. The lower limit is included because it rounds up to that value, and the upper limit is excluded because it rounds up to the next value instead. Working: 8.4 − 0.05 = 8.35 and 8.4 + 0.05 = 8.45, so a length of 8.35 cm still rounds to 8.4 cm while a length of 8.45 cm rounds to 8.5 cm. Answer: 8.35 ≤ L < 8.45. The distractors: 8.3 ≤ L < 8.5 goes a whole 0.1 cm either side instead of half of it; 8.35 < L ≤ 8.45 has the two limits the wrong way round, excluding the length that does round to 8.4 cm and including the one that does not; 8.4 ≤ L < 8.5 is the interval for a length truncated to 1 decimal place, not one rounded to it.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.