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
- (c) 20p — Turn each price into the same rate before comparing. The small bag is 400 g = 0.4 kg, so it costs £1.12 ÷ 0.4 = £2.80 per kg. The large bag costs £3.90 ÷ 1.5 = £2.60 per kg. The saving is £2.80 − £2.60 = £0.20, which is 20p per kg. 2p compares the prices per 100 g rather than per kilogram, £2.78 subtracts one bag price from the other without turning either into a rate, and £2.60 is the large bag's price per kilogram rather than the saving.
- (d) 60 — Method: round each number to 1 significant figure and multiply; the estimate then shows whether the calculator answer is sensible. Working: 3.1 rounds to 3 and 19.6 rounds to 20, so the estimate is 3 × 20 = 60. Answer: 60. Hannah's 6.076 is about ten times too small, which is what happens when 19.6 is keyed in as 1.96. The distractors: 62 comes from rounding 19.6 only and leaving 3.1 as it stands, giving 3.1 × 20 = 62; 6 comes from trusting the calculator display rather than checking it against an estimate; 600 comes from rounding 19.6 to 200 instead of to 20, a place-value slip, giving 3 × 200 = 600.
- (b) 3/50 — Method: write the decimal over the power of ten that matches the number of digits after the point, counting every digit including a zero, then divide the numerator and the denominator by their highest common factor. Working: 0.06 has two digits after the point, so it is 6 hundredths and can be written as 6/100; the highest common factor of 6 and 100 is 2, and 6 ÷ 2 = 3 with 100 ÷ 2 = 50. Answer: 3/50. The distractors: 3/5 comes from ignoring the zero straight after the point and converting 0.6 instead, giving 6/10, which cancels to 3/5; 3/500 comes from counting three decimal places instead of two and writing 6/1000, which cancels to 3/500; 1/6 comes from putting 1 over the digits after the point, as though 0.06 meant one sixth.
- (a) 1/5 — Work out the bracket first: 2 + 3 = 5. The reciprocal of 5 is 1/5. A candidate who forgot to take the reciprocal and just gave the value of the bracket wrote 5. A candidate who took the reciprocal but made a sign error wrote −1/5. A candidate who found the reciprocal of each number separately and added them, treating reciprocal as if it distributes over addition, worked out 1/2 + 1/3 = 5/6.
- (c) 0.0479 — Method: round each option to 2 significant figures and check which one gives 0.048. Working: for 0.0479, the first two significant figures are 4 and 7; the next digit is 9, so 7 rounds up to 8, giving 0.048. For 0.0485, the first two significant figures are 4 and 8; the next digit is 5, so 8 rounds up to 9, giving 0.049, not 0.048. 0.052 already has exactly 2 significant figures, 5 and 2, so it stays as 0.052 and does not round to 0.048 at all. 0.04 has only 1 significant figure, so it is already less precise than the 2 significant figures asked for. Answer: 0.0479.
- (b) 14.5 ≤ l < 15.5 — A measurement given to the nearest metre could have been rounded from anywhere up to half a metre below or above it: 15 − 0.5 = 14.5 and 15 + 0.5 = 15.5. Every value from 14.5 up to (but not reaching) 15.5 rounds to 15, so the error interval is 14.5 ≤ l < 15.5, with the lower bound included and the upper bound excluded. Making both ends strict, 14.5 < l < 15.5, wrongly excludes 14.5 itself, even though 14.5 does round to 15. Making both ends inclusive, 14.5 ≤ l ≤ 15.5, wrongly includes 15.5, which actually rounds up to 16, not 15. Using a whole metre either side instead of half a metre, giving 14 ≤ l < 16, comes from forgetting that the error is only half the rounding unit.
- (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.
- (b) 63 — 10% of 180 = 18, so 5% = 9. 35% = (3 × 18) + 9 = 54 + 9 = 63. A candidate who uses 25% instead of 35% gets 45. A candidate who doubles 35% to get 70% by mistake gets 126. A candidate who subtracts 35 from 180 instead of finding a percentage gets 145.
- (b) 1/9 — Method: let x stand for the recurring decimal, multiply by the power of ten that moves exactly one repeating block past the decimal point, subtract the original equation so that the recurring tail cancels, and solve the equation that is left. Working: let x = 0.111...; the repeating block is one digit long, so multiply by 10 to give 10x = 1.111...; subtracting the first equation from the second gives 10x − x = 1.111... − 0.111..., that is 9x = 1; dividing both sides by 9 gives x = 1/9. Answer: 1/9. The distractors: 1/10 comes from dividing by the multiplier 10 at the last step instead of by the 9 that is left in front of x; 1/11 comes from recalling the elevenths family instead of the ninths, although 1/11 = 0.0909... has a two-digit repeating block rather than a one-digit one; 11/100 comes from stopping the decimal after two digits and converting 0.11 into hundredths.
- (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.)
- (a) 4 + √6 — Multiply top and bottom by the conjugate, 4 + √6. The denominator becomes (4 − √6)(4 + √6) = 4² − (√6)² = 16 − 6 = 10. The numerator becomes 10 × (4 + √6) = 40 + 10√6. So the fraction is (40 + 10√6)/10 = 4 + √6, since both terms in the numerator divide by 10. Distributing the conjugate to only the whole-number term of the numerator, and forgetting the surd term entirely, leaves just 4. Rationalising by multiplying the numerator by the conjugate but leaving the ORIGINAL denominator's sign unchanged instead of squaring it lands on 4 − √6, with the surd's sign never actually flipping to positive. Dividing only the whole-number part of the numerator by 10 and forgetting to divide the surd term too leaves 4 + 10√6.
- (b) −0.7 < −0.25 — Method: compare the two negative decimals by their distance from zero on a number line. Working: −0.7 is 0.7 away from zero and −0.25 is 0.25 away from zero, so −0.7 is further from zero in the negative direction, making it the smaller number. Answer: −0.7 < −0.25 is true. "−0.7 > −0.25" comes from comparing 0.7 and 0.25 as if both numbers were positive, ignoring the negative signs. "−0.7 = −0.25" comes from assuming the two numbers are equal because they are both negative decimals. "−0.7 ≥ −0.25" combines the false statement "−0.7 > −0.25" with the false statement "−0.7 = −0.25".
- (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.
- (b) 3 — Method: solving an index equation like this means finding how many factors of the base multiply together to give the number on the right. Working: 4¹ = 4, 4² = 16 and 4³ = 64, so three factors of 4 are needed. Answer: 3. The distractors: 4 comes from listing 4, 16 and 64 and counting the base itself as a step, which gives one more than the index; 6 comes from solving the equation with 2 as the base instead of 4, since 2⁶ = 64; 16 comes from dividing 64 by 4, treating the index as an instruction to divide.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.