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) 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) 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.
- (a) the nearest whole number — The error intervals are 23.5 ≤ p < 24.5 and 5.5 ≤ q < 6.5. The minimum of p ÷ q is 23.5 ÷ 6.5 ≈ 3.615, and the maximum is 24.5 ÷ 5.5 ≈ 4.455. Both of these round to 4 at the nearest whole number, so the answer is guaranteed correct to the nearest whole number — but not to the nearest 0.1, since 3.615 rounds to 3.6 while 4.455 rounds to 4.5, which do not agree. Claiming the nearest 0.1 assumes every figure a calculator shows is trustworthy, without checking whether the bounds actually agree that far. Claiming only the nearest 10 badly understates how much can be guaranteed here, since both bounds already round to 4, not merely to 0. Saying no degree of accuracy can be guaranteed gives up before checking whether the bounds agree at any level at all.
- (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.
- (d) 1 × 10⁻³ — Method: for a number smaller than 1 the index is negative, and it counts the places the decimal point moves to the right to leave a coefficient between 1 and 10. Working: the only significant digit is 1, so the coefficient is 1; the decimal point in 0.001 moves three places to the right to reach that 1, so the index is −3. Answer: 1 × 10⁻³. The distractors: 1 × 10³ comes from taking the index as positive, which describes one thousand grams rather than one thousandth of a gram; 0.1 × 10⁻² is the same mass written with a coefficient of 0.1, which is smaller than 1 and so is not standard form; 1 × 10⁻⁴ comes from counting the zero in front of the decimal point as well as the places after it.
- (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.
- (c) 3:4 — The jacket costs 3/7 of £84, which is 3 × (84 ÷ 7) = 3 × 12 = £36. The bag then costs the rest of the money, £84 − £36 = £48. The ratio of the jacket to the bag is 36:48, which simplifies to 3:4. Writing the fraction spent on the jacket, 3/7, directly as the ratio, without working out that the bag's share is the remaining 4/7, gives 3:7. Giving the ratio the wrong way round, bag to jacket instead of jacket to bag, gives 4:3. Assuming the jacket and bag cost the same, ignoring the fraction given, gives 1:1.
- (d) 28 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded numbers to get an estimate that can be compared with the assistant's answer. Working: 7.2 rounds to 7, and 3.9 rounds to 4, so the estimate is 7 × 4 = 28. Since 28 is much smaller than 56.16, the assistant's answer cannot be correct. 56 comes from rounding the assistant's answer to the nearest whole number, instead of rounding the two numbers being multiplied and then multiplying them. 35 comes from rounding both numbers correctly but then slipping in the seven times table, writing 7 × 5 = 35 in place of 7 × 4 = 28. 21 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of 4, giving 7 × 3 = 21. Answer: 28.
- (a) 56 — Method: count the ordered selections with the product rule first, then divide by the number of different orders in which any one committee could have been picked. Working: there are 8 choices for a first pupil, 7 for a second and 6 for a third, giving 8 × 7 × 6 = 336 ordered selections; any particular three pupils could have been picked in 3 × 2 × 1 = 6 orders, so the number of different committees is 336 ÷ 6 = 56. Answer: 56. The distractors: 336 comes from stopping at 8 × 7 × 6 and treating the three places as distinct posts when they are identical; 168 comes from dividing that product by 2 rather than by the 6 orders in which three chosen pupils can be listed; 24 comes from multiplying the 8 volunteers by the 3 places instead of multiplying the choices at each stage.
- (b) £72 — One fifth of £60 = £12. New price = £60 + £12 = £72. A candidate who gives the increase instead of the new price gets £12. A candidate who subtracts the increase instead of adding it gets £60 − £12 = £48. A candidate who uses 1/4 instead of 1/5 gets £60 + £15 = £75.
- (b) 9 — Method: a negative index means take the reciprocal of the base first and then apply the positive power. Working: the reciprocal of 1/3 is 3, so (1/3)⁻² = 3² = 3 × 3 = 9. Answer: 9. The distractors: 1/9 comes from ignoring the minus sign and squaring 1/3 as it stands; −9 comes from reading the negative index as a minus sign on the result; 6 comes from multiplying the denominator by the index, 3 × 2, instead of squaring the reciprocal.
- (b) Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g — Method: a mass shown to the nearest 10 g lies within half of 10 g, that is 5 g, of the figure on the display, so compare the smallest mass the bag can have with the checker's limit of 996 g. Working: 1,000 − 5 = 995, so the actual mass of the bag can be as low as 995 g, and 995 g is below the 996 g limit, so a bag showing 1,000 g on the machine can still be rejected. Answer: Yes — the actual mass could be as low as 995 g. The distractors: 990 g comes from going a whole 10 g below the display instead of half of it; 999.5 g comes from treating the display as being to the nearest gram, when it is to the nearest 10 g; the claim that the mass is exactly 1,000 g treats a rounded display as an exact measurement.
- (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.
- (d) 50 km/h — The error intervals are 99.5 ≤ distance < 100.5 and 1.95 ≤ time < 2.05. The minimum speed is 99.5 ÷ 2.05 ≈ 48.54 km/h, and the maximum speed is 100.5 ÷ 1.95 ≈ 51.54 km/h. These two bounds round to different whole numbers, 49 and 52, so the speed cannot be guaranteed to the nearest whole number — but every value between them rounds to 50 at the nearest 10, so 50 km/h is the value that can safely be guaranteed. Quoting 49 km/h uses only the minimum bound's rounding, without checking that the maximum bound rounds to something different. Quoting 52 km/h makes the same mistake using only the maximum bound instead. Quoting 48.54 km/h states one bound to the full accuracy a calculator shows, as if the smallest possible speed were the answer, when the true speed could be anything up to 51.54 km/h.
- (a) y¹² — Method: when a power is raised to another power, multiply the two indices. Working: (y³)⁴ means y³ × y³ × y³ × y³, which is four lots of three y's multiplied together, so the index is 3 × 4 = 12 and (y³)⁴ = y¹². y⁷ comes from adding the indices, 3 + 4 = 7, which is the rule for multiplying two separate powers, not for raising a power to a power. y⁸¹ comes from working out 3⁴ = 81 and using that as the index, raising the inner index to the outer power instead of multiplying the two indices. 12y comes from multiplying the indices to make 12 but then treating y as a coefficient instead of a power. Answer: y¹².
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.