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
- (d) 636 g — Let x = 0.636363... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 63.636363... . Subtracting removes the recurring part exactly: 100x − x = 63.636363... − 0.636363... = 63, so 99x = 63, giving x = 63/99 = 7/11 kg. Converting to grams: 7/11 × 1000 = 7000/11 = 636.3636... g, which rounds to 636 g. Treating the decimal as if it terminated, writing 0.63 as 63/100 kg, gives 630 g when multiplied by 1000 — this drops the recurring part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x, using 100x − 10x = 90x = 63, is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit block, giving x = 63/90 = 7/10 kg, which is 700 g. A numerator slip in the subtraction, 63 − 1 = 62 instead of 63, gives x = 62/99 kg, which is 62000/99 = 626.26... g, rounding to 626 g.
- (a) 37.5 — The error intervals are 45 ≤ c < 55 and 17.5 ≤ d < 18.5. The maximum possible value of a difference comes from the largest possible value being reduced by the smallest amount: use the upper bound of c together with the LOWER bound of d, since subtracting less gives a bigger result: 55 − 17.5 = 37.5. Using the upper bound for both quantities, 55 − 18.5 = 36.5, forgets that subtracting a bigger number gives a smaller answer, not a bigger one. Using the lower bounds for both, 45 − 17.5 = 27.5, gives the lower bound of the difference instead of the upper one. Using the lower bound of c with the upper bound of d, 45 − 18.5 = 26.5, combines the two bounds the wrong way round entirely.
- (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.)
- (b) 120 — Method: fill the positions on the shelf one at a time; each book placed leaves one fewer book available for the next position, and the product rule multiplies the choices. Working: there are 5 books for the first position, 4 for the second, 3 for the third, 2 for the fourth and 1 for the last, so the number of orders is 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 120. Answer: 120. The distractors: 25 comes from multiplying the 5 books by the 5 positions rather than multiplying the shrinking number of choices at each position; 60 comes from halving the correct product, as though each order had been counted twice in the way that pairs are; 720 comes from carrying the product one factor too far and working out 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1, as though there were six books.
- (c) 2700 cm² — Convert both lengths to the same unit before multiplying: 0.6 m = 60 cm. The area is 45 × 60 = 2700 cm². Multiplying without converting 0.6 m to centimetres at all, treating it as 0.6 cm, gives 45 × 0.6 = 27 cm². Converting 0.6 m to centimetres by multiplying by 10 instead of 100 gives 6 cm, and 45 × 6 = 270 cm². Converting 0.6 m to centimetres by multiplying by 1000 instead of 100 gives 600 cm, and 45 × 600 = 27000 cm².
- (a) 2 × 3² × 5 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number until only prime factors remain. Working: 90 ÷ 2 = 45, 45 ÷ 3 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 90 = 2 × 3 × 3 × 5, written as 2 × 3² × 5. 2 × 3 × 15 stops before the 15 is broken down into 3 × 5, so it is not fully factorised. 3 × 3 × 10 stops before the 10 is broken down into 2 × 5. 2 × 45 stops after only one division. Answer: 2 × 3² × 5.
- (c) 9/5 — Method: the area of a rectangle is its length multiplied by its width; the decimal product is then written over a power of ten and cancelled. Working: 24 × 75 = 1800, and 2.4 and 0.75 have three decimal places between them, so 2.4 × 0.75 = 1.8; the area of the panel is 1.8 square metres, which is eighteen tenths, so it can be written as 18/10, and dividing the numerator and the denominator by 2 gives 9 over 5. Answer: 9/5. The distractors: 4/5 comes from converting only the digits after the decimal point and losing the whole one, turning 1.8 into eight tenths; 63/20 comes from adding the two sides instead of multiplying them, giving 3.15; 9/50 comes from misplacing the decimal point in the product and writing 0.18, which cancels to 9 over 50.
- (a) 120 — There are 6 choices for the first digit. The second digit must be different from the first, leaving 5 choices, and the third digit must differ from both of the first two, leaving 4 choices. By the product rule, the number of codes is 6 × 5 × 4 = 120. Allowing every digit to repeat, ignoring the 'no digit twice' rule entirely, gives 6 × 6 × 6 = 216. Adding the number of choices at each position instead of multiplying them, 6 + 5 + 4, gives 15. Treating the three chosen digits as one unordered set, rather than as digits in a fixed order on the padlock, divides by the 3! = 6 ways of arranging them: 120 ÷ 6 = 20.
- (b) 3/5 — Method: add all three parts for the total, add together the parts that are not green, then write this over the total. Working: total parts = 4 + 5 + 6 = 15. Not green = 4 + 5 = 9. Fraction = 9/15 = 3/5. Answer: 3/5. 2/5 comes from finding the fraction that IS green (6/15 = 2/5) instead of not green. 4/15 comes from only counting the red baubles as 'not green' and forgetting the gold ones. 9/10 comes from adding only two of the three ratio parts to find the total (4+6=10), missing out the gold part, while still using 9 for the numerator.
- (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) 360 — There are 5 choices for the letter. The first digit can be any of the 9 digits from 1 to 9, giving 9 choices, and the second digit must differ from the first, leaving 8 choices. By the product rule, the number of PINs is 5 × 9 × 8 = 360. Allowing the second digit to repeat the first, ignoring the 'no digit twice' rule, gives 5 × 9 × 9 = 405. Adding the numbers of choices instead of multiplying them, 5 + 9 + 8, gives 22. Treating the pair of digits as an unordered choice, rather than as a first digit followed by a second digit in a fixed order, halves the digit count: 5 × (9 × 8 ÷ 2) = 180.
- (c) Yes — the greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, under 500 kg — 493 kg correct to the nearest kg means the true total mass, m, satisfies 492.5 kg ≤ m < 493.5 kg. The greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, which is under the 500 kg safe working load, so the four people are definitely within it. 'The true total could be as high as 498 kg' comes from treating 'nearest kg' as an error of ±5 kg instead of ±0.5 kg. 'Cannot be decided without the exact total' overlooks that the error interval already gives the greatest possible total, so the decision can be made without knowing the exact figure. '493 kg is only an estimate, so it may be over 500 kg' ignores that the error interval is bounded — the true total cannot exceed 493.5 kg, well under 500 kg.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 3√5 — Split 45 into a perfect square times a factor: 45 = 9 × 5. Take the square root of each part separately: √45 = √9 × √5 = 3√5, since √9 = 3. Writing the perfect-square factor itself (9) as the coefficient instead of its root would give 9√5 — that trap comes from forgetting the last step, rooting 9. Multiplying 3 and 5 together instead of keeping them as coefficient and radicand gives 15, which throws away the surd entirely. Doubling the correct coefficient by mistake gives 6√5.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.