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) x⁽¹⁄²⁾ — Method: dividing two powers of the same letter subtracts the index of the divisor from the index of the term being divided, and fractional indices are subtracted like any other fractions. Working: 3/4 − 1/4 = 2/4, which simplifies to 1/2, so the result is x⁽¹⁄²⁾. Answer: x⁽¹⁄²⁾. The distractors: x comes from adding the indices, 3/4 + 1/4 = 1, as though the powers were being multiplied; x³ comes from dividing the indices, so that 3/4 divided by 1/4 gives 3; x⁽³⁄¹⁶⁾ comes from multiplying the indices, 3/4 × 1/4.
- (c) 0.0065 — Leading zeros are never significant, so counting from the first non-zero digit, the first two significant figures of 0.006482 are 6 and 4. Look at the next digit along, 8, to decide whether the second figure rounds up: since 8 is 5 or more, the 4 rounds up to 5, giving 0.0065. Rounding to 2 decimal places instead of 2 significant figures gives 0.01, which answers a different question. Wrongly counting one of the leading zeros as a significant figure and stopping one figure short gives 0.006. Keeping an extra digit, as in 0.00648, gives 3 significant figures rather than 2.
- (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.
- (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.
- (c) −5 ≤ −5 — The symbol ≤ means 'less than or equal to', and −5 is equal to −5, so this statement is true. −3 ≥ −1 is false: a candidate who ignores the negative signs and compares 3 with 1 would wrongly think −3 is the bigger number, but on the number line −3 is smaller than −1. 0.4 < 2/5 is false because 2/5 converts to exactly 0.4, so the two values are equal, not one strictly less than the other — a candidate who assumes a fraction is automatically bigger than a similar-looking decimal without converting it would miss this. 7/10 ≤ 0.6 is false because 7/10 converts to 0.7, which is bigger than 0.6; a candidate who misplaces the decimal point and converts 7/10 as 0.07 would wrongly believe this statement is true.
- (a) 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13. — Check 91 for prime factors up to its square root, which is just under 10: 91 ÷ 7 = 13, and both 7 and 13 are prime, so 91 = 7 × 13 and 91 is not a prime number. Checking only 2, 3 and 5 misses that 7 also needs to be tried — 91 is odd, its digits do not sum to a multiple of 3 (9 + 1 = 10), and it does not end in 0 or 5, so those three checks alone wrongly suggest it is prime. Assuming any odd number ending in 1 must be prime ignores that 91 = 7 × 13 is a counterexample. Misapplying the digit-sum test for 3 by miscounting 9 + 1 as a multiple of 3 wrongly concludes 91 is divisible by 3, when the correct digit sum, 10, is not a multiple of 3. So 91 is not prime, because 91 = 7 × 13.
- (a) 1/3 — Method: find the total fraction eaten, then subtract it from the whole pizza. Working: together they eat 5/12 + 3/12 = 8/12, so the fraction left is 12/12 − 8/12 = 4/12 = 1/3. Answer: 1/3. 2/3 comes from giving the fraction eaten instead of the fraction left. 7/12 comes from only subtracting Ben's slices and forgetting Mia's. 1/2 comes from comparing the 4 slices left with the 8 slices eaten, 4/8, a part-to-part comparison instead of comparing with the whole pizza of 12 slices.
- (a) 0.0069 — Leading zeros are not significant, so the significant figures in 0.006852 start at 6: 6, 8, 5, 2. Rounding to 2 significant figures means keeping 6 and 8, and looking at the next digit, 5, to decide whether to round up. Since 5 rounds up, the second significant figure increases from 8 to 9: 0.006852 rounds to 0.0069. A candidate who rounded to 1 significant figure instead of 2 wrote 0.007. A candidate who rounded to 3 significant figures instead of 2 wrote 0.00685. A candidate who did not round up despite the next digit being 5 wrote 0.0068.
- (d) 0.3 — Converting the fractions to decimals, 1/4 = 0.25 and 2/5 = 0.4, so any decimal between 0.25 and 0.4 is a valid answer, and 0.3 fits. Confusing 1/4 with 1/5 and converting it as 0.2 instead of 0.25 gives a value below the true lower bound. Confusing 2/5 with 1/2 and converting it as 0.5 instead of 0.4 gives a value above the true upper bound. Converting the fractions correctly but choosing a decimal above the true upper bound of 0.4 instead of between the two values gives 0.45.
- (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) 12 — Method: division and multiplication have equal priority, so they are carried out in the order they are written, from left to right; a negative divided by a negative is positive. Working: (−36) ÷ (−6) = 6, and then 6 × 2 = 12. Answer: 12. The distractors: 3 comes from carrying out the multiplication first, (−6) × 2 = −12 followed by (−36) ÷ (−12) = 3; −12 comes from treating a negative divided by a negative as negative, giving −6 and then −6 × 2 = −12; 6 comes from stopping at the division and never carrying out the multiplication by 2.
- (a) 2/5 — The ratio 2:3 has 2 + 3 = 5 parts in total, and the larger plot is 3 of those parts. Since the larger plot is 18 m², each part is 18 ÷ 3 = 6 m², so the total area is 5 × 6 = 30 m² and the smaller plot is 2 × 6 = 12 m². The fraction of the total area taken up by the smaller plot is 12/30, which simplifies to 2/5. Giving the fraction for the larger plot instead of the smaller one gives 3/5. Comparing the smaller plot to the larger plot instead of to the total area gives 2/3. Assuming the two plots split the area evenly, ignoring the given ratio altogether, gives 1/2.
- (b) £37 — One box costs £4 + £3 = £7. Five boxes cost 5 × £7 = £35. Adding the single £2 delivery fee gives £35 + £2 = £37. A candidate who added the £2 delivery fee to each box instead of once for the whole order worked out 5 × (£7 + £2) = 5 × £9 = £45. A candidate who forgot the £3 markup and used the shop's buying price worked out 5 × £4 + £2 = £22. A candidate who added the £3 markup only once, after multiplying the buying price by 5, worked out 5 × £4 + £3 + £2 = £25.
- (b) £220 — Method: round each ticket price to the nearest £5, multiply each rounded price by the number of tickets, then add the two totals. Working: the adult price £38.50 rounds to £40, and 4 × £40 = £160; the child price £19.75 rounds to £20, and 3 × £20 = £60; £160 + £60 = £220. Answer: £220. £213.25 is the exact total cost, found without rounding the prices first, so it is not an estimate. £160 comes from including the cost of the adult tickets only and forgetting the three children's tickets. £200 comes from swapping the two ticket quantities, using 3 adults and 4 children instead of 4 adults and 3 children.
- (b) £8 — Rounding to 1 significant figure: £1.85 rounds to £2, and 3.6 kg rounds to 4 kg. The estimate is £2 × 4 = £8. A candidate who used the unrounded values instead of estimating worked out 1.85 × 3.6 = £6.66. A candidate who rounded only the mass and used the exact price worked out 1.85 × 4 = £7.40. A candidate who rounded the price to the nearest 10p instead of 1 significant figure worked out 1.9 × 4 = £7.60.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.