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) 4.6 — Since 100 lies between 64 and 125, ∛100 lies between 4 and 5. Narrow it down: 4.6³ = 97.336, which is less than 100, so ∛100 is greater than 4.6. To decide how it rounds to 1 decimal place, test the midpoint: 4.65³ = 100.544, which is more than 100, so ∛100 is less than 4.65 and therefore rounds down to 4.6. Simply taking the midpoint of 4 and 5 without testing any cube gives 4.5. Going up to the next tenth because 4.6³ fell short of 100, without checking that 4.65³ already overshoots, gives 4.7. Comparing 100 with the two given cubes, 64 and 125, noticing that 100 is nearer to 125, and rounding straight to the nearest whole number gives 5.0 — but that comparison is between the cubes, not between the cube roots, and cubing stretches the gaps unevenly, so it says nothing about which value the cube root rounds to.
- (d) £50.00 — The sale price is 85% of the original, so the original price = £42.50 ÷ 0.85 = £50.00. 15% of £42.50 is £6.375. A candidate who finds 15% of £42.50 and subtracts it from the sale price gets £42.50 − £6.375 = £36.125, which is £36.13 to the nearest penny. A candidate who adds 15% of £42.50 instead of reversing the decrease gets £42.50 + £6.375 = £48.875, which is £48.88 to the nearest penny. A candidate who divides by 0.15 instead of 0.85 gets £283.33.
- (a) 2a²b³ — Method: a fourth root applies to every factor inside it, and taking the fourth root of a power divides that power's index by 4. Working: 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16, so the fourth root of 16 is 2; 8 ÷ 4 = 2 gives a², and 12 ÷ 4 = 3 gives b³. Answer: 2a²b³. The distractors: 2a⁴b⁶ comes from halving both indices, treating every root sign as a square root; 4a²b³ comes from taking the square root of 16 while dividing the letters' indices by 4; 2a²b⁴ comes from dividing b's index by 3 instead of by 4, as though b sat under a cube root.
- (b) 0.3, 32%, 7/20 — Method: convert every number to a decimal so they can be compared on the same scale. Working: 7/20 = 0.35, 0.3 stays as 0.3, and 32% = 0.32. Comparing 0.3, 0.32 and 0.35 in size gives the order 0.3, then 0.32, then 0.35. Answer: 0.3, 32%, 7/20. 7/20, 32%, 0.3 lists the numbers from largest to smallest instead of smallest to largest. 0.3, 7/20, 32% swaps 32% and 7/20, treating the fraction 7/20 as smaller even though 7/20 = 0.35 is bigger than 32% = 0.32. 32%, 0.3, 7/20 comes from moving the digits one place too far when converting the percentage, giving 0.032 instead of 0.32, which makes 32% look far smaller than it really is.
- (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.
- (b) 4.05 — Method: line up the decimal points (or place value columns) before adding. Working: 3.60 + 0.45 = 4.05. Answer: 4.05. 3.65 is Priya's answer, from adding the digits without lining up the place value columns, which effectively treats 0.45 as 0.05. 4.5 comes from rounding both numbers up first, 3.6 to 4 and 0.45 to 0.5, and adding those instead of adding the exact values. 0.81 comes from adding the digits 36 and 45 together to get 81, then placing the decimal point in the wrong position.
- (c) 12.44 — The error intervals are 155.5 ≤ mass < 156.5 and 11.5 ≤ volume < 12.5. To make a quotient as small as possible, use the SMALLEST possible numerator together with the LARGEST possible denominator: 155.5 ÷ 12.5 = 12.44 g/cm³. Using the lower bound for both mass and volume, 155.5 ÷ 11.5 ≈ 13.52, forgets that dividing by a smaller number makes the result bigger, not smaller — that pairing does not give a minimum at all. Dividing the two given rounded values directly, 156 ÷ 12 = 13, ignores that both measurements have their own error interval. Using the upper bound of mass with the upper bound of volume, 156.5 ÷ 12.5 = 12.52, takes both bounds the same way round; it is neither the minimum nor the maximum, since the maximum needs the largest mass with the smallest volume, 156.5 ÷ 11.5 ≈ 13.61.
- (d) 2⁷ — When multiplying powers of the same base, the indices add: 3 + 4 = 7, so 2³ × 2⁴ = 2⁷. Multiplying the indices instead of adding them gives 3 × 4 = 12, so 2¹². Subtracting the indices instead of adding them gives 4 − 3 = 1, so 2¹. Multiplying the bases together as well as adding the indices gives 2 × 2 = 4, so 4⁷.
- (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) 7 — Method: trap the number between the two square numbers on either side of it, then decide which of them it is nearer to. Working: 6² = 36 and 7² = 49, so √45 lies between 6 and 7; 49 − 45 = 4 while 45 − 36 = 9, so 45 is nearer to 49. Answer: 7. The distractors: 6 comes from taking the square number below 45 and stopping there, without checking which of 36 and 49 is nearer; 22.5 comes from halving 45 instead of looking for the number that multiplies by itself to give 45; 2,025 comes from squaring 45 instead of taking its square root.
- (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.
- (d) 36 — Method: the fraction is acting as an operator on the whole class, so one third of the class equals 12; the operation has to be reversed, and the inverse of dividing by 3 is multiplying by 3. Working: 1/3 × (number of pupils) = 12, so the number of pupils = 12 × 3 = 36. Answer: 36 pupils. The distractors: 4 comes from applying the operator instead of reversing it, working out 12 ÷ 3 = 4; 18 comes from reading the 12 girls as two thirds of the class, giving 12 ÷ 2 × 3 = 18; 24 comes from working out the number of boys, the other two thirds, as 2 × 12 = 24 and giving that instead of the size of the class.
- (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) 36 kg — The mix is 3 + 5 = 8 equal shares, so the cement is 3/8 of the mass. One share is 96 ÷ 8 = 12 kg, and the cement is 3 shares: 3 × 12 = 36 kg. Working out 3/5 of 96 gives 57.6 kg, which uses the sand as the denominator instead of the whole mix; 60 kg is the mass of the sand; 12 kg is one share only.
- (c) 2/5 — To find a fraction of a fraction, multiply them together: 3/5 × 2/3 = 6/15, which simplifies to 2/5. Multiplying only the numerators, 3 × 2 = 6, but adding the denominators, 5 + 3 = 8, instead of multiplying them gives 6/8, which simplifies to 3/4. Using only the fraction who study French, 3/5, and ignoring that a further fraction of them also study Spanish gives 3/5. Dividing by 2/3 instead of multiplying by it, using its reciprocal 3/2, gives 3/5 × 3/2 = 9/10.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.