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) Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g — Method: a mass shown to the nearest 10 g lies within half of 10 g, that is 5 g, of the figure on the display, so compare the smallest mass the bag can have with the checker's limit of 996 g. Working: 1,000 − 5 = 995, so the actual mass of the bag can be as low as 995 g, and 995 g is below the 996 g limit, so a bag showing 1,000 g on the machine can still be rejected. Answer: Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g. The distractors: 990 g comes from going a whole 10 g below the display instead of half of it; 999.5 g comes from treating the display as being to the nearest gram, when it is to the nearest 10 g; the claim that the mass is exactly 1,000 g treats a rounded display as an exact measurement.
- (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.
- (d) 1 × 10⁻³ — Method: for a number smaller than 1 the index is negative, and it counts the places the decimal point moves to the right to leave a coefficient between 1 and 10. Working: the only significant digit is 1, so the coefficient is 1; the decimal point in 0.001 moves three places to the right to reach that 1, so the index is −3. Answer: 1 × 10⁻³. The distractors: 1 × 10³ comes from taking the index as positive, which describes one thousand grams rather than one thousandth of a gram; 0.1 × 10⁻² is the same mass written with a coefficient of 0.1, which is smaller than 1 and so is not standard form; 1 × 10⁻⁴ comes from counting the zero in front of the decimal point as well as the places after it.
- (c) 3 — Method: the index counts how many times the coefficient has been multiplied by 10, which is the number of places the decimal point moves from the end of the number to just after the first significant digit. Working: 2,000 = 2 × 1,000, and 1,000 = 10 × 10 × 10, which is three tens. Answer: 3. The distractors: 4 comes from counting the four digits of 2,000 rather than the three places the decimal point moves; 2 comes from copying the coefficient 2 into the index; −3 comes from making the index negative, which would describe a number smaller than 1 rather than two thousand.
- (a) 5 — 16 + 9 = 25, then √25 = 5. Splitting the root over the addition instead gives √16 = 4 and √9 = 3, then 4 + 3 = 7 — but a root does not split over a sum like this. Multiplying those two roots instead of adding them gives 4 × 3 = 12. Taking the negative square root instead of the positive one gives −5.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) 590 — To round to the nearest 10, decide which multiple of 10 the number is nearer to. 592.5 lies between 590 and 600. It is 592.5 − 590 = 2.5 above 590, but 600 − 592.5 = 7.5 below 600, so it is much nearer to 590. Equivalently, the units digit is 2, and 2 is less than 5, so round down: 592.5 rounds to 590. A candidate who wrote 600 rounded up because of the 5 in the tenths place, but that digit decides rounding to the nearest whole number, not to the nearest 10 — the units digit is what matters here. A candidate who wrote 595 rounded to the nearest 5 instead of the nearest 10. A candidate who wrote 500 cut the number down to its hundreds digit instead of rounding to the nearest 10.
- (a) to the nearest centimetre — Method: the error interval of a rounded measurement runs from half a unit below the stated value to half a unit above it, so the width of the interval is one whole unit of the accuracy used. Working: the interval runs from 24.5 to 25.5, a width of 25.5 − 24.5 = 1, so the unit of accuracy is 1 cm; the stated value is the midpoint, 25 cm, and 25 correct to the nearest centimetre is exactly what gives 24.5 ≤ L < 25.5. Answer: to the nearest centimetre. To the nearest 0.5 cm comes from reading the half-unit, 0.5, as the accuracy itself instead of doubling it back to the full unit. To 1 decimal place comes from seeing the bounds written with one decimal place and taking that as the accuracy, but the bounds of a value given to 1 decimal place would be only 0.05 either side. To the nearest 10 cm comes from confusing the size of the value, about 25, with the unit it was rounded to; rounding to the nearest 10 cm would give an interval 5 cm either side of the stated value.
- (c) 3:4 — The jacket costs 3/7 of £84, which is 3 × (84 ÷ 7) = 3 × 12 = £36. The bag then costs the rest of the money, £84 − £36 = £48. The ratio of the jacket to the bag is 36:48, which simplifies to 3:4. Writing the fraction spent on the jacket, 3/7, directly as the ratio, without working out that the bag's share is the remaining 4/7, gives 3:7. Giving the ratio the wrong way round, bag to jacket instead of jacket to bag, gives 4:3. Assuming the jacket and bag cost the same, ignoring the fraction given, gives 1:1.
- (c) 3 × 10⁶ — Daily revenue = (4 × 10³) × 2.5 = 1 × 10⁴ (£10,000). Multiplying by the number of days, (3 × 10²), gives annual revenue = (1 × 10⁴) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁶ (£3,000,000). A candidate who forgot to multiply by the price and just multiplied the number of items by the number of days worked out (4 × 10³) × (3 × 10²) = 1.2 × 10⁶. A candidate who added the number of days to the daily revenue instead of multiplying worked out 1 × 10⁴ + 3 × 10² = 1.03 × 10⁴. A candidate who misread £2.50 as £25 worked out a daily revenue of (4 × 10³) × 25 = 1 × 10⁵, giving an annual total of (1 × 10⁵) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁷.
- (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) 11:20 — Method: find the flight time using time = distance ÷ speed, then add this to the departure time. Working: 2340 ÷ 780 = 3 hours; 08:20 + 3 hours = 11:20. Answer: 11:20. 08:40 comes from dividing speed by distance instead of distance by speed, giving a flight time of 1/3 hour (20 minutes) rather than 3 hours. 11:00 comes from adding the 3-hour flight time to the hour of the departure time only, 8 + 3 = 11, and losing the 20 minutes. 03:00 comes from finding the flight time correctly but giving it as a clock time on its own, forgetting to add it to the departure time.
- (a) the nearest whole number — The error intervals are 23.5 ≤ p < 24.5 and 5.5 ≤ q < 6.5. The minimum of p ÷ q is 23.5 ÷ 6.5 ≈ 3.615, and the maximum is 24.5 ÷ 5.5 ≈ 4.455. Both of these round to 4 at the nearest whole number, so the answer is guaranteed correct to the nearest whole number — but not to the nearest 0.1, since 3.615 rounds to 3.6 while 4.455 rounds to 4.5, which do not agree. Claiming the nearest 0.1 assumes every figure a calculator shows is trustworthy, without checking whether the bounds actually agree that far. Claiming only the nearest 10 badly understates how much can be guaranteed here, since both bounds already round to 4, not merely to 0. Saying no degree of accuracy can be guaranteed gives up before checking whether the bounds agree at any level at all.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.