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
- (c) 22 — Without restriction there are 6 × 4 = 24 combinations. Two specific combinations are not available, so subtract 2: 24 − 2 = 22. 24 comes from ignoring the restriction completely. 23 comes from subtracting only 1 of the 2 excluded combinations. 18 comes from removing the whole sport trim level, 6 × 3 = 18, instead of removing just the two excluded combinations.
- (d) 9 — List all the factors of 36 in pairs that multiply to give 36: 1 × 36, 2 × 18, 3 × 12, 4 × 9, and 6 × 6. This gives the factors 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 36 — nine factors in total, with 6 counted only once even though it appears in a pair with itself. Forgetting that 36 is itself a factor of 36 and leaving it off the list gives 8. Counting the number of factor pairs, five of them, rather than the number of individual factors gives 5. Treating the repeated pair 6 × 6 as two separate factors, 6 and 6 again, gives 10 instead of 9. So 36 has 9 factors.
- (a) 24 — Method: rearrange the relationship so that the lowest common multiple stands alone; it is the product of the two numbers divided by their highest common factor. Working: 48 = 2 × the lowest common multiple, so the lowest common multiple is 48 ÷ 2 = 24. Checking, 24 is in the 6 times table and in the 8 times table. Answer: 24. The distractors: 48 comes from giving the product of the two numbers and never dividing by the highest common factor; 96 comes from multiplying by the highest common factor instead of dividing by it; 12 comes from dividing by the highest common factor twice, once for each of the two numbers.
- (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.
- (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.
- (d) 1/4 — Method: deal with the fractional index first, then the negative sign. Working: $8^{2/3} = (\sqrt[3]{8})^2 = 2^2 = 4$. A negative index means take the reciprocal of that result, so $8^{-2/3} = \frac{1}{8^{2/3}} = \frac{1}{4}$. Answer: 1/4. A candidate who evaluates $8^{2/3}$ correctly but forgets the negative sign entirely gets 4 — they have dropped the instruction to take a reciprocal. A candidate who takes the reciprocal step but applies it as a sign change to the finished number instead of inverting it gets −4. A candidate who multiplies 8 by −2/3, treating the index as an ordinary factor rather than a power, gets −16/3.
- (a) 11:20 — Method: find the flight time using time = distance ÷ speed, then add this to the departure time. Working: 2340 ÷ 780 = 3 hours; 08:20 + 3 hours = 11:20. Answer: 11:20. 08:40 comes from dividing speed by distance instead of distance by speed, giving a flight time of 1/3 hour (20 minutes) rather than 3 hours. 11:00 comes from adding the 3-hour flight time to the hour of the departure time only, 8 + 3 = 11, and losing the 20 minutes. 03:00 comes from finding the flight time correctly but giving it as a clock time on its own, forgetting to add it to the departure time.
- (d) 24.69 — To round to 2 decimal places, look only at the third decimal digit to decide whether the second decimal digit rounds up. In 24.6851 the third decimal digit is 5, and since 5 is 5 or more, the second decimal digit rounds up from 8 to 9, giving 24.69. Rounding to 1 decimal place instead of 2 gives 24.7, one place value too coarse. Keeping the third decimal digit rather than dropping it gives 24.685, which is 3 decimal places. Looking at the fourth decimal digit, 1, instead of the third one, and wrongly deciding that no rounding is needed, leaves the length unrounded at 24.68.
- (c) £8.20 — Method: find the total cost, then subtract from the amount paid. Working: 35 × £1.48 = £51.80. Amount paid = 3 × £20 = £60.00. Change = £60.00 − £51.80 = £8.20. Answer: £8.20. (£58.52 comes from forgetting to multiply the price by the 35 litres and subtracting only £1.48 from £60. £7.50 comes from rounding £1.48 up to £1.50 before multiplying, giving a total of £52.50 instead of £51.80. £9.20 comes from miscarrying in the pence column when subtracting £51.80 from £60.00.)
- (c) Yes — the greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, under 500 kg — 493 kg correct to the nearest kg means the true total mass, m, satisfies 492.5 kg ≤ m < 493.5 kg. The greatest possible total is 493.5 kg, which is under the 500 kg safe working load, so the four people are definitely within it. 'The true total could be as high as 498 kg' comes from treating 'nearest kg' as an error of ±5 kg instead of ±0.5 kg. 'Cannot be decided without the exact total' overlooks that the error interval already gives the greatest possible total, so the decision can be made without knowing the exact figure. '493 kg is only an estimate, so it may be over 500 kg' ignores that the error interval is bounded — the true total cannot exceed 493.5 kg, well under 500 kg.
- (a) 1/2 — The ratio 1:2:3 has 1 + 2 + 3 = 6 parts in total. Amir and Bo together receive 1 + 2 = 3 of those parts, so together they receive 3/6 of the £60, which simplifies to 1/2. Using only Amir's single part, 1/6, ignores Bo's share entirely. Adding Bo's and Chen's parts instead of Amir's and Bo's, 2 + 3 = 5, gives 5/6. Comparing Amir and Bo's 3 parts to Chen's 3 parts, rather than to the total of 6 parts, gives 3/3 = 1.
- (a) The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre — Method: a measurement should never be written to a finer degree of accuracy than the instrument used can read. Working: the tape is marked in centimetres, so the smallest division Leah can read is 1 cm, which is 0.01 m and two decimal places in metres; writing 7.3157 m claims the length to the nearest tenth of a millimetre, four decimal places, which the markings cannot support. A record of 7.32 m, to the nearest centimetre, is what this tape justifies. Answer: The tape can only give the length to the nearest centimetre. The distractors: the nearest millimetre contradicts the markings described in the question, which are centimetres, and would still claim more accuracy than the tape offers; the rule that a length in metres must be written to 2 decimal places borrows the habit of writing money to the penny, when the accuracy of a length depends on the instrument; rounding to the nearest metre would throw away accuracy the tape genuinely provides.
- (b) 5/27 — Method: multiply the numerators together and the denominators together, then simplify. Working: (5 × 2)/(6 × 9) = 10/54 = 5/27. Answer: 5/27. 7/15 comes from adding the fractions instead of multiplying: (5+2)/(6+9) = 7/15. 15/4 comes from flipping the second fraction, as if dividing: (5 × 9)/(6 × 2) = 45/12 = 15/4. 5/3 comes from cancelling the two denominators against each other, dividing both 6 and 9 by 3 to leave 5/2 × 2/3 = 10/6 = 5/3; cancelling is only valid between a numerator and a denominator, never between two denominators.
- (c) 3 × 10⁶ — Daily revenue = (4 × 10³) × 2.5 = 1 × 10⁴ (£10,000). Multiplying by the number of days, (3 × 10²), gives annual revenue = (1 × 10⁴) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁶ (£3,000,000). A candidate who forgot to multiply by the price and just multiplied the number of items by the number of days worked out (4 × 10³) × (3 × 10²) = 1.2 × 10⁶. A candidate who added the number of days to the daily revenue instead of multiplying worked out 1 × 10⁴ + 3 × 10² = 1.03 × 10⁴. A candidate who misread £2.50 as £25 worked out a daily revenue of (4 × 10³) × 25 = 1 × 10⁵, giving an annual total of (1 × 10⁵) × (3 × 10²) = 3 × 10⁷.
- (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.