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.
Answer key: Number worksheet — GCSE Higher
MathsUKwww.geekhero.co.uk
- (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.
- (c) 4 × 10⁻¹ — Multiply the A values: 8 × 5 = 40. Add the powers of 10: −5 + 3 = −2, giving 40 × 10⁻². Since A must satisfy 1 ≤ A < 10, rewrite 40 as 4 × 10¹, so 40 × 10⁻² = 4 × 10¹ × 10⁻² = 4 × 10⁻¹. A candidate who stopped at 40 × 10⁻² did the index arithmetic correctly but left the answer outside standard form, since 40 is not between 1 and 10. A candidate who adjusted the A value to 4 correctly but then took the power of 10 by subtracting the two given powers, −5 − 3 = −8, wrote 4 × 10⁻⁸. A candidate who adjusted the A value to 4 but multiplied the two given powers, −5 × 3 = −15, wrote 4 × 10⁻¹⁵. Both of these forgot that multiplying in standard form means adding the powers.
- (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) 71 — 2.9⁴ = (2.9²)². First, 2.9² = 8.41. Then square that: 8.41² = 70.7281, since 841² = 707281 and the decimal point moves four places. To 2 significant figures this rounds to 71, because the figure after the first two significant figures (7 and 0) is a 7, which rounds the 0 up to 1. Rounding the working down instead of up — taking 70.7281 to 70 — ignores that the next figure is 5 or more. Rounding 2.9 up to 3 before doing any working at all, then computing 3⁴ = 81, uses a much cruder approximation and overshoots the true value. Rounding 8.41 all the way down to 8 before squaring, 8² = 64, rounds far too aggressively and loses the accuracy needed for 2 significant figures.
- (c) 62.35 ≤ r < 62.45 — Method: with a value rounded to 1 decimal place, the error interval reaches half of 0.1 either side. Working: half of 0.1 is 0.05, so the interval runs from 62.4 − 0.05 to 62.4 + 0.05. Answer: 62.35 ≤ r < 62.45. (62 ≤ r < 63 comes from rounding to the nearest whole number instead of 1 decimal place. 62.35 ≤ r ≤ 62.45 comes from including the upper bound with ≤ instead of excluding it with <. 62.3 ≤ r < 62.5 comes from using 0.1 either side instead of half of it.)
- (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.
- (d) 2 hours — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round the distance first and then divide by the speed. Working: 95 km rounds to 100 km, and 100 ÷ 50 = 2; the speed is in kilometres per hour, so the answer is a number of hours. Answer: 2 hours. The distractors: 1 hour comes from rounding the distance down to 50 km to match the speed, so that the journey looks like a single hour of driving; 30 minutes comes from dividing the speed by the distance, 50 ÷ 100, instead of the distance by the speed; 1 hour 54 minutes is the exact time, 95 ÷ 50 = 1.9 hours, worked out in full when the question asks for an estimate.
- (d) £33.00 — The profit is 3/8 of £24 = (£24 ÷ 8) × 3 = £3 × 3 = £9.00. Selling price = £24 + £9.00 = £33.00. A candidate who gives the profit instead of the selling price gets £9.00. A candidate who subtracts the profit instead of adding it gets £24 − £9 = £15.00. A candidate who works out one eighth of £24 and adds that on, forgetting to multiply by the numerator 3, gets £24 + £3 = £27.00.
- (d) 1050 ml — Convert both amounts to millilitres: 1.8 litres = 1800 ml and 3/4 litre = 750 ml. Subtracting gives 1800 − 750 = 1050 ml. Confusing 3/4 with 75% and converting it as 75 ml instead of 750 ml gives 1800 − 75 = 1725 ml. Adding the amount poured out instead of subtracting it gives 1800 + 750 = 2550 ml. Misreading 1.8 litres as 0.8 litres, losing the whole litre, gives 800 − 750 = 50 ml.
- (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.
- (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... .
- (d) 11 mm — Method: for a square, the side length is the square root of the area. Working: 11 × 11 = 121, so the side length is 11 mm. 60.5 mm comes from working out 121 ÷ 2 = 60.5, halving the area instead of finding its square root. 242 mm comes from working out 121 × 2 = 242, doubling the area instead of finding its square root. 22 mm comes from working out 11 × 2 = 22, doubling the correct side length. Answer: 11 mm.
- (a) 30 cm — The tile's side length must be a common factor of 90 and 120. The factors of 90 include 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 30, 45, 90; the factors of 120 include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120. The highest number common to both lists is 30, so the largest square tile has a side length of 30 cm. Picking 15 cm, a common factor but not the largest, gives tiles that are smaller than necessary. Picking 10 cm, also a common factor but smaller still, wastes even more of the possible tile size. Working out the lowest common multiple instead of the highest common factor gives 360 cm, a length far bigger than either side of the patio. So the largest square tile Ben can use has a side length of 30 cm.
- (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.
- (a) 120 — There are 6 choices for the first digit. The second digit must be different from the first, leaving 5 choices, and the third digit must differ from both of the first two, leaving 4 choices. By the product rule, the number of codes is 6 × 5 × 4 = 120. Allowing every digit to repeat, ignoring the 'no digit twice' rule entirely, gives 6 × 6 × 6 = 216. Adding the number of choices at each position instead of multiplying them, 6 + 5 + 4, gives 15. Treating the three chosen digits as one unordered set, rather than as digits in a fixed order on the padlock, divides by the 3! = 6 ways of arranging them: 120 ÷ 6 = 20.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.