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) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
- (c) 23.375 — The error intervals are 7.5 ≤ base < 8.5 and 4.5 ≤ height < 5.5. The upper bound of the area uses the upper bound of both the base and the height, then halves the product: 8.5 × 5.5 ÷ 2 = 23.375 cm². Using the lower bound of both dimensions instead, 7.5 × 4.5 ÷ 2 = 16.875, gives the lower bound of the area rather than the upper one. Multiplying the two upper bounds together but forgetting to halve for the triangle formula, 8.5 × 5.5 = 46.750, treats the triangle as if it were a rectangle. Using the given values directly without applying any bound at all, 8 × 5 ÷ 2 = 20.000, ignores that each rounded measurement has its own range of possible values.
- (d) 64 — Method: each time the power increases by 1, the value doubles, since one more 2 is multiplied in. Working: 2⁶ = 2⁵ × 2 = 32 × 2 = 64. Answer: 64. (37 comes from adding the power to the value, 32 + 5, instead of multiplying by the base. 192 comes from multiplying 32 by the new power, 6, instead of by the base, 2. 34 comes from adding the base to the value, 32 + 2, instead of multiplying.)
- (a) 14 — Multiply both numbers by 10 to clear the decimals: 8.4 becomes 84 and 0.6 becomes 6. Then divide: 84 ÷ 6 = 14, so 14 complete pieces can be cut. Scaling only the divisor by 10 and leaving the dividend as 8.4 gives 8.4 ÷ 6 = 1.4, which rounds down to 1 complete piece — the dividend was never converted. Scaling only the dividend by 10 and leaving the divisor as 0.6 gives 84 ÷ 0.6 = 140. Rounding the divisor from 0.6 to 0.7 before dividing, trading accuracy for a rounder number, gives 8.4 ÷ 0.7 = 12. So 14 complete pieces of ribbon can be cut.
- (a) 2.5 × 10⁷ — Method: place the decimal point so that the coefficient is at least 1 and less than 10, then count the places it has moved. Working: the digits give a coefficient of 2.5, and the decimal point travels from the end of 25,000,000 until it sits between the 2 and the 5, a move of 7 places. Answer: 2.5 × 10⁷. The distractors: 25 × 10⁶ is the same area but not in standard form, because the coefficient must be less than 10; 2.5 × 10⁸ comes from counting the eight digits of 25,000,000 instead of the seven places the decimal point moves; 2.5 × 10⁻⁷ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left.
- (c) 3 and 4 — Find the two consecutive fourth powers either side of 200: 3⁴ = 81 and 4⁴ = 256. Since 81 < 200 < 256, ⁴√200 lies between 3 and 4. Answering 14 and 15 comes from taking a square root instead of a fourth root: √200 ≈ 14.14, which does lie between 14 and 15, but that is not the root the question asks for. Answering 5 and 6 comes from taking a cube root instead of a fourth root: ∛200 ≈ 5.85, which lies between 5 and 6. Answering 4 and 5 comes from working 4⁴ as though it were 4 × 4 × 4 = 64 and stopping a factor short, then concluding that 200 is already past 4⁴ and the root must be above 4.
- (b) 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3 — Truncating simply cuts off the digits after the required decimal place instead of rounding them, so every value from 6.2 up to (but not reaching) 6.3 truncates to 6.2. This gives the error interval 6.2 ≤ x < 6.3, with no allowance made on the lower side because truncation never rounds a smaller value up into this interval. Using 6.15 ≤ x < 6.25 applies the rounding rule of going half a unit either side, which does not apply to truncation. Writing 6.1 < x ≤ 6.2 puts the interval below 6.2 instead of above it. Writing 6.2 ≤ x ≤ 6.3 wrongly includes 6.3, which truncates down to itself, not to 6.2.
- (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.
- (d) 2 hours — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round the distance first and then divide by the speed. Working: 95 km rounds to 100 km, and 100 ÷ 50 = 2; the speed is in kilometres per hour, so the answer is a number of hours. Answer: 2 hours. The distractors: 1 hour comes from rounding the distance down to 50 km to match the speed, so that the journey looks like a single hour of driving; 30 minutes comes from dividing the speed by the distance, 50 ÷ 100, instead of the distance by the speed; 1 hour 54 minutes is the exact time, 95 ÷ 50 = 1.9 hours, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
- (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
- (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.
- (a) 4,000 nanometres — Method: the number of nanometres is the diameter divided by the length of one nanometre, and dividing powers of ten means subtracting the indices. Working: −6 − (−9) = 3, so 10⁻⁶ ÷ 10⁻⁹ = 10³, and the diameter is 4 × 10³ nanometres. Answer: 4,000 nanometres. The distractors: 400 nanometres comes from taking the difference between the indices as 2 instead of 3; 4 nanometres comes from changing the name of the unit without converting, leaving the coefficient untouched; 0.004 nanometres comes from dividing by 10³ instead of multiplying by it, as though a nanometre were the larger of the two units.
- (c) 1/x⁶ — Method: raising a power to another power multiplies the two indices, and a negative index means one over the matching positive power. Working: −2 × 3 = −6, so (x⁻²)³ = x⁻⁶, and x⁻⁶ written as a fraction is 1/x⁶. Answer: 1/x⁶. The distractors: x⁶ comes from multiplying the indices correctly but dropping the minus sign; 1/x⁵ comes from adding the sizes of the indices, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; −x⁶ comes from reading the negative index as a minus sign in front of the whole term.
- (a) x¹¹ — Method: when multiplying powers of the same base, add the indices. Working: 7 + 4 = 11, so x⁷ × x⁴ = x¹¹. x²⁸ comes from multiplying the indices, 7 × 4 = 28, instead of adding them. x³ comes from working out 7 − 4 = 3, which is the rule for dividing powers, not multiplying them. 11x comes from adding the indices to make 11 but then treating x as a coefficient instead of a power. Answer: x¹¹.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.