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) 45 — Method: count the ordered pairings with the product rule and then correct for the fact that a game between two players is the same game whichever player it is counted from. Working: each of the 10 players meets 9 opponents, so 10 × 9 = 90 pairings are counted; every game has been counted twice, once from each player's side, so the number of games is 90 ÷ 2 = 45. Answer: 45. The distractors: 90 comes from stopping at 10 × 9 and never halving, so that each game is counted once for each of its two players; 55 comes from adding 10 + 9 + 8 + ... + 1 instead of 9 + 8 + ... + 1, which counts one extra round of games; 20 comes from multiplying the 10 players by the 2 players in each game rather than pairing the players with one another.
- (d) 1050 ml — Convert both amounts to millilitres: 1.8 litres = 1800 ml and 3/4 litre = 750 ml. Subtracting gives 1800 − 750 = 1050 ml. Confusing 3/4 with 75% and converting it as 75 ml instead of 750 ml gives 1800 − 75 = 1725 ml. Adding the amount poured out instead of subtracting it gives 1800 + 750 = 2550 ml. Misreading 1.8 litres as 0.8 litres, losing the whole litre, gives 800 − 750 = 50 ml.
- (b) Yes, because 14.8 cm rounds to 15 cm to the nearest cm — Method: a recorded measurement is not an exact length; it stands for every length that rounds to it, so the two records agree if one rod can produce both. Working: Ben's record of 14.8 cm to the nearest 0.1 cm means the rod is between 14.75 cm and 14.85 cm, and 14.8 is nearer to 15 than to 14, so a rod of that length is recorded as 15 cm to the nearest centimetre. Both records can therefore come from the same rod. Answer: Yes, because 14.8 cm rounds to 15 cm to the nearest cm. The distractors: the claim that 14.8 cm rounds to 15.0 cm to 1 decimal place is false, since 14.8 cm is already written to 1 decimal place and stays 14.8 cm; the claim that it rounds to 14 cm is false, because 14.8 is 0.2 away from 15 and 0.8 away from 14; the claim that the two lengths are not the same treats each record as an exact length, when each is only a rounded record of one rod.
- (c) 2/5 — To find a fraction of a fraction, multiply them together: 3/5 × 2/3 = 6/15, which simplifies to 2/5. Multiplying only the numerators, 3 × 2 = 6, but adding the denominators, 5 + 3 = 8, instead of multiplying them gives 6/8, which simplifies to 3/4. Using only the fraction who study French, 3/5, and ignoring that a further fraction of them also study Spanish gives 3/5. Dividing by 2/3 instead of multiplying by it, using its reciprocal 3/2, gives 3/5 × 3/2 = 9/10.
- (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.
- (c) 31 — Method: work out each power separately, remembering that any non-zero base raised to the power 0 is 1 and a base raised to the power 1 is itself, then add the three values. Working: 5⁰ = 1, 5¹ = 5 and 5² = 25, so the total is 1 + 5 + 25 = 31. Answer: 31. The distractors: 30 comes from taking 5⁰ as 0 instead of 1; 35 comes from taking 5⁰ as 5, treating a zero index as leaving the base unchanged; 125 comes from adding the indices first, as though the three terms were being multiplied, and working out 5³.
- (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) 3 — Method: list all valid two-digit numbers that can be made without starting with 0, then keep only the ones that are multiples of 5. Working: the two-digit numbers possible are 30, 35, 50 and 53. A number is a multiple of 5 only if it ends in 0 or 5: 30 ends in 0, 35 ends in 5, 50 ends in 0, but 53 ends in 3. So there are 3 multiples of 5. Answer: 3. 4 comes from including 53 as a multiple of 5 without checking that its last digit is not 0 or 5. 2 comes from leaving out 50, wrongly assuming 0 cannot be used as the second digit either. 6 comes from listing every two-digit arrangement of the three digits, including ones that start with 0, without applying either restriction.
- (d) √13 — Method: everything under a root sign is worked out first, because a square root cannot be taken term by term across an addition. Working: 2² = 4 and 3² = 9, so the expression under the root is 4 + 9 = 13. As 13 is not a square number, the exact value is left in root form as √13. Answer: √13. The distractors: 5 comes from rooting each square separately and adding, 2 + 3, which treats the root of a sum of squares as the sum of the numbers; 13 comes from working out the sum under the root correctly and then forgetting to take the root; √5 comes from subtracting the two squares, 9 − 4, instead of adding them.
- (a) They cannot both be describing the same path — Jon's measurement means the true length, l, satisfies 11.5 m ≤ l < 12.5 m. Mia's measurement means the true length satisfies 12.55 m ≤ l < 12.65 m. These two ranges do not overlap, so the two measurements cannot both be describing the same path. 'They must both be describing the same path' ignores that the two ranges do not overlap at all. 'Jon's measurement must be wrong' wrongly assumes Jon is the one at fault, when the mismatch does not show which measurement, if either, is wrong. 'Mia's measurement must be wrong' makes the same unjustified assumption in the other direction.
- (c) 27 — Each of the 3 digits can be chosen independently for each of the 3 positions, so multiply: 3 × 3 × 3 = 27. 9 comes from multiplying only two of the three positions, 3 × 3, and forgetting the third. 6 comes from working out 3 × 2 × 1 = 6, which counts codes where digits do not repeat, but the question allows repeated digits. 3 comes from considering only one digit position.
- (b) £1,000, so £900 is not enough — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure, multiply to estimate the total cost, then compare the estimate with the money available. Working: 187 rounds to 200 and £4.85 rounds to £5, so the estimate is 200 × 5 = 1,000, and £1,000 is more than the £900 the school has. Answer: £1,000, so £900 is not enough. The distractors: £800 comes from cutting £4.85 down to £4 instead of rounding it up to £5, giving 200 × 4 = 800, and that estimate wrongly suggests the money stretches; £935 comes from rounding the price only and keeping 187 lunches, giving 187 × 5 = 935; £950 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 rather than to 1 significant figure, giving 190 × 5 = 950.
- (d) 2/25 — Method: write the decimal over 100 using its two decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.08 = 8/100 = 2/25 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 4). Answer: 2/25. The student's fraction, 8/10, comes from ignoring the zero in the tenths column and reading 0.08 as though it were 0.8; it simplifies to 4/5. 1/125 comes from writing the decimal over 1000 instead of 100, as if there were three decimal places. 25/2 comes from flipping the correct fraction upside down.
- (c) 4.6 — Since 100 lies between 64 and 125, ∛100 lies between 4 and 5. Narrow it down: 4.6³ = 97.336, which is less than 100, so ∛100 is greater than 4.6. To decide how it rounds to 1 decimal place, test the midpoint: 4.65³ = 100.544, which is more than 100, so ∛100 is less than 4.65 and therefore rounds down to 4.6. Simply taking the midpoint of 4 and 5 without testing any cube gives 4.5. Going up to the next tenth because 4.6³ fell short of 100, without checking that 4.65³ already overshoots, gives 4.7. Comparing 100 with the two given cubes, 64 and 125, noticing that 100 is nearer to 125, and rounding straight to the nearest whole number gives 5.0 — but that comparison is between the cubes, not between the cube roots, and cubing stretches the gaps unevenly, so it says nothing about which value the cube root rounds to.
- (c) x⁽²⁄³⁾ — Method: a root can be written as a fractional index, with the root's index as the denominator and the power inside the root as the numerator. Working: the cube root gives a denominator of 3 and the square inside gives a numerator of 2, so ∛(x²) = x⁽²⁄³⁾. Answer: x⁽²⁄³⁾. The distractors: x⁽³⁄²⁾ comes from writing the fraction upside down, with the root's index on top; x⁽¹⁄⁶⁾ comes from treating the square as a second root and multiplying 1/3 by 1/2; x⁶ comes from multiplying the root's index by the power, 3 × 2, and keeping the result as a whole-number index.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.