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) 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.
- (d) 10 — Method: list the pairs systematically, taking each sweet in turn and pairing it only with the sweets that come after it, so that no pair is written down twice. Working: numbering the sweets 1 to 5, the first sweet pairs with 4 others, the second pairs with 3 sweets that come after it, the third with 2 and the fourth with 1, so the total is 4 + 3 + 2 + 1 = 10. Answer: 10. The distractors: 20 comes from working out 5 × 4 and never halving, which counts each pair twice, once in each order; 25 comes from working out 5 × 5, which allows the same sweet to be chosen twice; 9 comes from adding the 5 choices and the 4 remaining choices instead of combining them as a selection of two.
- (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.
- (a) 2√3 — Multiply the top and bottom of the fraction by √3, since √3 × √3 = 3: 6/√3 = (6 × √3)/(√3 × √3) = 6√3/3. Dividing 6 by 3 gives 2, so the fraction simplifies to 2√3. Multiplying only the numerator by √3 and then cancelling the surd in the denominator against it as if they were the same term, without properly squaring the denominator, leads to 6. Dividing 6 by 3 as 3 instead of 2 gives 3√3 — a slip in the final division. Simplifying 6√3/3 by cancelling the whole numerator's 3 with the denominator's 3, including the surd, gives 2, which loses the surd altogether.
- (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) 42.5 ≤ t < 47.5 — Rounding to the nearest 5 minutes means the actual time can be up to half of 5 minutes, 2.5 minutes, below or above 45 before it would round to a different multiple of 5. The lower bound is 45 − 2.5 = 42.5 and the upper bound is 45 + 2.5 = 47.5. A time of exactly 47.5 minutes would round up to 50, not 45, so 47.5 is excluded while 42.5 does still round to 45. Writing 42.5 ≤ t ≤ 47.5 wrongly includes 47.5. Writing 40 ≤ t < 50 uses a whole rounding unit, 5, either side instead of half of it. Writing 44.5 ≤ t < 45.5 treats the rounding unit as 1 minute instead of 5 minutes.
- (d) 6 — Method: the square root of a product can be found either by multiplying first and then rooting, or by rooting each factor and multiplying the two roots together. Working: 4 × 9 = 36, and 6 × 6 = 36, so the root is 6; the same value comes from √4 × √9 = 2 × 3. Answer: 6. The distractors: 36 comes from multiplying inside the root and then leaving the root untaken; 5 comes from rooting each factor and adding the results, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; 18 comes from rooting the 4 only and leaving the 9 untouched, giving 2 × 9.
- (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.
- (a) 1,500 ≤ m < 2,500 — Method: a four-digit figure written to 1 significant figure has been rounded to the nearest 1,000, so the mass lies within half of 1,000, that is 500, of the figure given. Working: 2,000 − 500 = 1,500 and 2,000 + 500 = 2,500. The lower limit is included, because 1,500 kg rounds up to 2,000 kg to 1 significant figure, while 2,500 kg rounds up to 3,000 kg, so the upper limit is not. Answer: 1,500 ≤ m < 2,500. The distractors: 1,950 ≤ m < 2,050 comes from rounding to the nearest 100 instead of to 1 significant figure; 1,000 ≤ m < 3,000 goes a whole 1,000 either side instead of half of it; 1,500 < m ≤ 2,500 has the two limits the wrong way round.
- (a) 25 — Reverse the operations in reverse order: undo the subtraction by adding 6, then undo the division by multiplying by 5. −1 + 6 = 5, so the number divided by 5 equals 5, and 5 × 5 = 25 — checking, 25 ÷ 5 − 6 = 5 − 6 = −1. A candidate who subtracted 6 again instead of adding worked out −1 − 6 = −7, then −7 × 5 = −35. A candidate who multiplied by 5 before undoing the subtraction, doing the inverse operations in the wrong order, worked out −1 × 5 = −5, then −5 + 6 = 1. A candidate who multiplied by 5 but forgot to undo the subtraction at all worked out −1 × 5 = −5 and stopped there.
- (a) 300 N/m² — Pressure is force ÷ area, and the unit N/m² says so: newtons divided by square metres. The calculation is 240 ÷ 0.8. Multiplying both numbers by 10 clears the decimal: 2400 ÷ 8 = 300 N/m². 192 N/m² multiplies the force by the area instead of dividing, 30 N/m² divides by 8 and so loses the decimal point, and 3000 N/m² multiplies only the force by 10 when clearing the decimal.
- (a) 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6 — Convert all four fractions to a common denominator of 30: 2/3 is 20/30, 3/5 is 18/30, 5/6 is 25/30, and 1/2 is 15/30. Ordering by these numerators, smallest to largest, gives 15/30, 18/30, 20/30, 25/30, which is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6. Ordering by the size of the numerator in the original fractions, 1, 2, 3, 5, rather than converting to a common denominator, gives the wrong order 1/2, 2/3, 3/5, 5/6, because it ignores that the denominators are different. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 5/6, 2/3, 3/5, 1/2. Using the rule "the bigger the denominator, the smaller the fraction" to place the last two, so that 5/6 is put below 2/3 because 6 is bigger than 3, gives 1/2, 3/5, 5/6, 2/3 — that rule only holds when the numerators are the same, and here 20/30 really is smaller than 25/30. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 1/2, 3/5, 2/3, 5/6.
- (b) 63 — 5 + 2 = 7, then 3² = 9, then 7 × 9 = 63. Ignoring the brackets and applying BIDMAS as if the expression were unbracketed gives 3² = 9, then 2 × 9 = 18, then 5 + 18 = 23. Squaring the bracket instead of the 3 gives 7² = 49, then 49 × 3 = 147 — the power belongs to the 3 alone. Multiplying by 3 before squaring the whole product gives 7 × 3 = 21, then 21² = 441.
- (b) 4/9 — Method: double the butter part of the ratio, keeping flour the same, find the new total, then write butter's part over the new total. Working: the new ratio is flour : butter = 5 : 4, since butter doubles from 2 to 4. New total = 5 + 4 = 9. Fraction of butter = 4/9. Answer: 4/9. 2/9 comes from forgetting to double the butter part and using the original value 2 over the new total of 9. 4/7 comes from doubling the butter part correctly to 4 but keeping the old total of 7 instead of working out the new total. 2/5 comes from using the original ratio 5:2 directly as butter over flour without doubling anything.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.