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
- (a) 0.55, 58%, 3/5 — Converting all three to decimals: 3/5 = 0.6, 0.55 stays as 0.55, and 58% = 0.58. In order from smallest to largest, this is 0.55, then 58%, then 3/5. Writing the numbers in the reverse order, largest to smallest, gives 3/5, 58%, 0.55. Misconverting 3/5 as 0.5 instead of 0.6 makes it appear smaller than both other values, giving the order 3/5, 0.55, 58%. Misconverting 58% as 0.058 instead of 0.58, by moving the decimal point two extra places, makes it appear smallest of the three, giving the order 58%, 0.55, 3/5.
- (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) The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre — Method: a measurement should never be written to a finer degree of accuracy than the instrument used can read. Working: the tape is marked in centimetres, so the smallest division Leah can read is 1 cm, which is 0.01 m and two decimal places in metres; writing 7.3157 m claims the length to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, four decimal places, which the markings cannot support. A record of 7.32 m, to the nearest centimetre, is what this tape justifies. Answer: The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre. The distractors: the nearest millimetre contradicts the markings described in the question, which are centimetres, and would still claim more accuracy than the tape offers; the rule that a length in metres must be written to 2 decimal places borrows the habit of writing money to the penny, when the accuracy of a length depends on the instrument; rounding to the nearest metre would throw away accuracy the tape genuinely provides.
- (b) 5.1 — ∛130 lies between 5 and 6, since 125 < 130 < 216, and closer to 5 because 130 is much nearer 125 than 216. To pin down the first decimal place, test the midpoint of the tenth, 5.05: 5.05³ = 5.05 × 5.05 × 5.05 ≈ 128.79. Since 130 is greater than 128.79, ∛130 lies above 5.05, so it rounds to 5.1 rather than 5.0. Rounding down to 5.0, on the assumption that a value close to the lower bound 125 must round down, ignores that 5.05³ is already less than 130. Estimating 5.2 overshoots the true root: 5.2³ = 140.608, which is well above 130, so ∛130 cannot round to 5.2. Taking 6.0, the upper of the two whole numbers the root lies between, ignores that 130 is far nearer to 5³ = 125 than to 6³ = 216, so the root sits just above 5, not just below 6.
- (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.
- (d) 12 — Method: if the bracelets are identical and no beads are left over, the number of bracelets must divide exactly into both totals, so it is the highest common factor of 24 and 36. Working: 24 = 2³ × 3 and 36 = 2² × 3²; taking the lower index of each shared prime gives 2² × 3 = 4 × 3 = 12. Each bracelet then has 2 red beads and 3 blue beads. Answer: 12. The distractors: 6 comes from taking each shared prime once rather than at its lower index, giving 2 × 3, which is a common factor but not the highest; 72 is the lowest common multiple of 24 and 36, from taking the higher index of each prime instead of the lower; 60 comes from adding the two bead totals instead of looking for a common factor.
- (a) 5 — Method: the number of glasses is the amount in the jug divided by the amount one glass holds. Write the mixed number as an improper fraction, then divide by multiplying by the reciprocal. Working: 3 1/3 = (3 × 3 + 1)/3 = 10/3, and 10/3 ÷ 2/3 = 10/3 × 3/2 = 30/6 = 5. Answer: 5. The distractors: 2 comes from writing 3 1/3 as 4/3, adding the whole number to the numerator instead of multiplying it by the denominator first, and then dividing 4/3 by 2/3; 20/9 comes from multiplying by 2/3 instead of dividing by it; 5/3 comes from dividing by 2 rather than by 2/3, as though each glass held 2 litres.
- (b) 88.8 — Multiply as whole numbers first, ignoring the decimal point: 37 × 24. Split it as 37 × 20 = 740 and 37 × 4 = 148, so 37 × 24 = 740 + 148 = 888. 3.7 has 1 decimal place and 24 has none, so the answer needs 1 decimal place: 88.8. Counting the 2 digits in "3.7" as though that were the number of decimal places gives 8.88 instead of 1 decimal place. Leaving the decimal point out altogether gives 888. Misreading 37 × 4 as 138 rather than 148 gives a running total of 878, placed with 1 decimal place as 87.8. So 3.7 × 24 = 88.8.
- (a) 2² × 3 — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime that goes in, until 1 is reached, then write the primes used as a product with indices. Working: 12 ÷ 2 = 6, 6 ÷ 2 = 3 and 3 ÷ 3 = 1, so the primes used are 2, 2 and 3, which is written as 2² × 3. Answer: 2² × 3. The distractors: 2 × 6 comes from stopping at the first factor pair without splitting the 6, which is not prime; 2 × 3 comes from listing each prime once and losing the repeat, and it multiplies to 6 rather than 12; 2 × 3² puts the index on the wrong prime and multiplies to 18.
- (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
- (b) 3²⁰ is larger — Method: two powers with different bases and different indices can be compared once they are rewritten with a common index, which is possible whenever the indices share a factor. Working: 30 and 20 have a highest common factor of 10, so 2³⁰ = (2³)¹⁰ = 8¹⁰ and 3²⁰ = (3²)¹⁰ = 9¹⁰. Both are now tenth powers, and since 9 is larger than 8, 9¹⁰ is larger than 8¹⁰. Answer: 3²⁰ is larger. The distractors: 2³⁰ is larger comes from comparing only the indices and choosing the power with the bigger index; They are equal comes from multiplying base by index, 2 × 30 and 3 × 20, and finding 60 each time; They cannot be compared without a calculator comes from assuming that powers this large can only be ranked by evaluating them in full.
- (b) 1 : 2 — 2/5 of 50 is 20, so there are 20 red counters and 50 − 20 = 30 blue counters. Taking 5 red counters out leaves 15 red and 30 blue, so red : blue = 15 : 30. Dividing both parts by 15 gives 1 : 2. 2 : 3 is the ratio before any counters are removed, 2 : 1 has the two parts the wrong way round, and 4 : 5 comes from taking the 5 counters out of the blue instead of the red.
- (a) £600 — Method: round the number of cakes and the price of each cake to 1 significant figure, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 187 rounds to 200, and £2.95 rounds to £3 (the digit after the first, 9, rounds the 2 up to 3), so the estimate is 200 × £3 = £600. £400 comes from rounding £2.95 down to £2 instead of up to £3, giving 200 × £2 = £400. £561 comes from rounding only the price and using the exact number of cakes, 187 × £3 = £561. £570 comes from rounding 187 to the nearest 10 as 190 instead of to 1 significant figure as 200, giving 190 × £3 = £570. Answer: £600.
- (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.
- (d) £70 — Method: the discount is a percentage of the original price only, so work it out, subtract it, and add the fixed delivery charge afterwards. Working: 25% of £80 is £80 ÷ 4 = £20, so the discounted price is £80 − £20 = £60, and the total is £60 + £10 = £70. Answer: £70. The distractors: £60 comes from working out the discounted price and stopping there, leaving the delivery charge out of the total; £65 comes from taking £25 off the price instead of 25% of it, giving £80 − £25 = £55 and then £55 + £10 = £65; £67.50 comes from adding the delivery charge before the discount and reducing the whole amount, giving 75% of £90 = £67.50.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.