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) 90 — Multiply the number of choices for each course: 5 × 6 × 3 = 90. 14 comes from adding the three numbers instead of multiplying them. 30 comes from multiplying only the starters and mains, 5 × 6, and forgetting the dessert. 18 comes from multiplying only the mains and desserts, 6 × 3, and forgetting the starter.
- (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.
- (c) 0.001 — Method: a negative index means 'one over' the positive power, so $10^{-3}$ means one over $10^{3}$. Working: ten cubed is 1000, and one over 1000 is 0.001. 1000 comes from ignoring the negative sign and working out ten cubed instead of its reciprocal. −1000 comes from ignoring what the negative index does to the size, while still writing a negative sign on the large value. −0.001 comes from correctly finding the size, 0.001, but wrongly keeping a negative sign because the index was negative. Answer: 0.001.
- (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.
- (c) £7.25 — Find the total cost of the books first: 3 × 4.25 = 12.75, so the books cost £12.75 in total. Subtract this from the £20 note: 20.00 − 12.75 = 7.25, so the change is £7.25. Stopping after finding the cost and not subtracting it from £20 gives £12.75, which is the amount spent, not the change. Borrowing correctly in the pence column but forgetting to reduce the pounds column by 1 gives £8.25 instead of £7.25. Multiplying 3 × 4.25 as 12.25 instead of 12.75, a multiplication slip, makes the change come out £0.50 too high, at £7.75. So Jack receives £7.25 change.
- (d) 27/80 — Method: write the total as a fraction of a litre, then divide by the number of glasses. Working: 1.35 = 27/20, so each glass holds 27/20 ÷ 4 = 27/80 of a litre. Answer: 27/80. 27/20 comes from converting the total correctly to a fraction but forgetting to divide by the number of glasses. 27/5 comes from multiplying the total by 4 instead of dividing. 17/50 comes from rounding 1.35 ÷ 4 to 0.34 before converting to a fraction.
- (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".
- (a) They cannot both be describing the same path — Jon's measurement means the true length, l, satisfies 11.5 m ≤ l < 12.5 m. Mia's measurement means the true length satisfies 12.55 m ≤ l < 12.65 m. These two ranges do not overlap, so the two measurements cannot both be describing the same path. 'They must both be describing the same path' ignores that the two ranges do not overlap at all. 'Jon's measurement must be wrong' wrongly assumes Jon is the one at fault, when the mismatch does not show which measurement, if either, is wrong. 'Mia's measurement must be wrong' makes the same unjustified assumption in the other direction.
- (c) Exactly 1: the subtraction has no rounding at any step. — 10x − x removes the recurring part completely, because the digits after the decimal point in 10x and in x are identical from the tenths place onward, so they cancel exactly: 9.999... − 0.999... = 9.000... = 9. Nothing was rounded to reach 9x = 9, so x = 1 is an exact equality, not an approximation, and the statement that the value is exactly 1, with no rounding at any step, is the correct one. Calling it only approximately 1, on the ground that a recurring decimal can never reach a whole number, misunderstands what the subtraction has just shown: the recurring tail cancels completely, leaving no gap to approximate away. Claiming the method only works because the recurring digit is 9 is also wrong — the same subtraction cancels the recurring part for any repeating digit, not just 9; it is the choice of multiplier (10, matching the one-digit repeat) that makes the cancellation exact, not the digit itself. Saying 10x minus x gives 8.999... rather than 9 misreads the subtraction: 9.999... − 0.999... has no digit to borrow from, since every decimal digit in the two numbers matches, so the result is exactly 9, not 8.999... .
- (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.
- (a) 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78% — Method: convert every value to a decimal, then order the decimals from largest to smallest. Working: 7/8 = 0.875, 17/20 = 0.85, 0.8 = 0.8, 78% = 0.78. Ordering from largest to smallest gives 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78%. Answer: 7/8, 17/20, 0.8, 78%. '78%, 0.8, 17/20, 7/8' comes from ordering the converted decimals from smallest to largest instead of largest to smallest. '17/20, 7/8, 0.8, 78%' comes from converting 17/20 incorrectly as larger than 7/8, for example treating 17/20 as 0.87 instead of 0.85, swapping the top two. '7/8, 0.8, 17/20, 78%' comes from converting 17/20 incorrectly as equal to 0.8, swapping the middle two.
- (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.
- (a) 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601 — Compare the decimals by giving them all the same number of decimal places first: 0.600, 0.550, 0.601, 0.500, 0.560. Ordering these from smallest to largest gives 0.500, 0.550, 0.560, 0.600, 0.601, which is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601. Comparing the digits as though they were whole numbers, reading 0.601 as "601" and 0.5 as "5", without padding to the same number of decimal places, gives the wrong order 0.5, 0.6, 0.55, 0.56, 0.601, because it ignores the place value of each digit. Ordering largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest, as the question asks, gives 0.601, 0.6, 0.56, 0.55, 0.5. Misreading the close values 0.55 and 0.56 and swapping them gives 0.5, 0.56, 0.55, 0.6, 0.601. So the correct order, smallest to largest, is 0.5, 0.55, 0.56, 0.6, 0.601.
- (c) 1/4 — A negative index means the reciprocal of the positive power, so 2⁻² = 1 ÷ 2² = 1/4. Treating the negative sign as making the answer negative instead gives −(2²) = −4. Ignoring the negative sign altogether gives just 2² = 4. Finding the reciprocal correctly but then also applying a negative sign gives −1/4.
- (a) 330 ml — Correct to the nearest 20 ml means the true volume could be up to 10 ml (half of 20) either side of 340 ml. The smallest possible volume is 340 − 10 = 330 ml. A candidate who subtracted the full 20 ml instead of half of it worked out 340 − 20 = 320 ml. A candidate who added instead of subtracted, finding the largest possible volume instead of the smallest, worked out 340 + 10 = 350 ml. A candidate who halved the interval again by mistake, using 5 ml instead of 10 ml, worked out 340 − 5 = 335 ml.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.