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) 720 — Method: the three medals are awarded one after the other, and each award removes one athlete from the pool available for the next, so the product rule multiplies the number of choices at each stage. Working: 10 athletes could take gold; once gold is settled 9 could take silver; once silver is settled 8 could take bronze; so the number of ways is 10 × 9 × 8 = 720. Answer: 720. The distractors: 1000 comes from working out 10 × 10 × 10, which allows the same athlete to take more than one medal; 120 comes from dividing the product by 6, which would be right only if the three medals were identical, whereas gold, silver and bronze are different; 30 comes from multiplying the 10 athletes by the 3 medals instead of multiplying the choices at each stage.
- (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.
- (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.
- (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) 7/30 — Let x = 0.2333... . Because only the 3 recurs, use two multiples of x that line up the recurring part exactly: 10x = 2.333... and 100x = 23.333... . Subtracting removes the recurring tail completely: 100x − 10x = 23.333... − 2.333... = 21, so 90x = 21, giving x = 21/90 = 7/30. Treating the decimal as if it terminated after two places, writing 0.23 as 23/100, ignores that the 3 carries on forever. Misreading which digits recur — treating 0.2333... as if the block '23' repeated, giving 0.232323... — leads to x = 23/99, which is a different, larger recurring decimal from the one given. A numerator slip in the subtraction, computing 22 instead of 21, gives x = 22/90 = 11/45.
- (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) 22 — Without restriction there are 6 × 4 = 24 combinations. Two specific combinations are not available, so subtract 2: 24 − 2 = 22. 24 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 23 comes from subtracting only 1 of the 2 excluded combinations. 18 comes from removing the whole sport trim level, 6 × 3 = 18, instead of removing just the two excluded combinations.
- (d) 4/3 — Method: the product of two negative numbers is positive, so work with 2/5 × 10/3 and then simplify. Multiply the numerators together and the denominators together. Working: 2 × 10 = 20 and 5 × 3 = 15, giving 20/15; both 20 and 15 divide by 5, so 20/15 = 4/3. Answer: 4/3. The distractors: −4/3 has the arithmetic right but keeps a minus sign, from treating negative × negative as negative; 3/25 comes from turning the second fraction upside down and multiplying, which divides instead of multiplying and gives 2/5 × 3/10 = 6/50; −56/15 comes from adding the two fractions instead of multiplying them, giving −6/15 − 50/15.
- (b) 400 — Method: round each number to the nearest 100, then subtract the rounded values. Working: 812 rounds to 800 (nearest 100) and 397 rounds to 400 (nearest 100). 800 − 400 = 400. Answer: 400. 500 comes from rounding 397 down to 300 instead of up to the nearest 100, 400. 300 comes from rounding 812 down to 700 instead of up to the nearest 100, 800. 415 is the exact value of 812 − 397, found without rounding first, so it is not an estimate — the spreadsheet's answer of 315 is too far from the estimate of 400 to be correct.
- (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.
- (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) 4.6 — Since 100 lies between 64 and 125, ∛100 lies between 4 and 5. Narrow it down: 4.6³ = 97.336, which is less than 100, so ∛100 is greater than 4.6. To decide how it rounds to 1 decimal place, test the midpoint: 4.65³ = 100.544, which is more than 100, so ∛100 is less than 4.65 and therefore rounds down to 4.6. Simply taking the midpoint of 4 and 5 without testing any cube gives 4.5. Going up to the next tenth because 4.6³ fell short of 100, without checking that 4.65³ already overshoots, gives 4.7. Comparing 100 with the two given cubes, 64 and 125, noticing that 100 is nearer to 125, and rounding straight to the nearest whole number gives 5.0 — but that comparison is between the cubes, not between the cube roots, and cubing stretches the gaps unevenly, so it says nothing about which value the cube root rounds to.
- (a) x⁶ — Method: work through the powers in order — multiplying powers of the same base means adding indices, and dividing powers of the same base means subtracting indices. Working: first, x⁵ × x³ = x⁸ (adding 5 and 3); then x⁸ ÷ x² = x⁶ (subtracting 2 from 8). x⁴ comes from swapping the two rules — subtracting for the multiplication, 5 − 3 = 2, and then adding for the division, 2 + 2 = 4. x¹⁰ comes from adding all three indices, 5 + 3 + 2 = 10, treating the division the same as a multiplication. 6x comes from correctly reaching a total index of 6 but then writing it as a coefficient of x instead of as its power. Answer: x⁶.
- (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
- (b) 28 — Method: count the ordered choices with the product rule and then correct for the double counting, because the two captains have equal standing and so a pair is the same pair whichever captain is named first. Working: there are 8 players who could be named first and 7 who could be named second, giving 8 × 7 = 56 ordered choices; each pair has been counted twice, once in each order, so the number of pairs is 56 ÷ 2 = 28. Answer: 28. The distractors: 56 comes from stopping at 8 × 7 and never halving, which counts each pair of captains twice; 64 comes from working out 8 × 8, which allows the same player to be chosen as both captains; 16 comes from multiplying the 8 players by the 2 captaincies instead of pairing the players with one another.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.