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
- (d) 6 × 10⁷ — Method: the coefficients and the powers of ten are handled separately — multiply the coefficients, and add the indices because the powers share the base 10. Working: 2 × 3 = 6 for the coefficients, and 10³ × 10⁴ = 10⁷ for the powers; 6 lies between 1 and 10, so the coefficient needs no adjustment. Answer: 6 × 10⁷. The distractors: 5 × 10⁷ comes from adding the coefficients, 2 + 3, instead of multiplying them; 6 × 10¹² comes from multiplying the indices, 3 × 4, instead of adding them; 6 × 10¹ comes from subtracting the indices, 4 − 3, which is the rule for dividing rather than for multiplying.
- (a) 0.625 — Method: convert the fraction to a decimal so it can be compared properly with 0.6. Working: 5/8 = 0.625, and since 0.625 > 0.6, the larger value is 0.625. Answer: 0.625. 0.6 repeats Sam's incorrect claim, made by comparing single digits rather than full place value. 0.58 comes from converting 5/8 incorrectly, treating it as if it read 5 tenths and 8 hundredths. 0.85 comes from turning the fraction upside down and writing its digits straight after the decimal point, 8 then 5, instead of dividing.
- (c) −5 ≤ −5 — The symbol ≤ means 'less than or equal to', and −5 is equal to −5, so this statement is true. −3 ≥ −1 is false: a candidate who ignores the negative signs and compares 3 with 1 would wrongly think −3 is the bigger number, but on the number line −3 is smaller than −1. 0.4 < 2/5 is false because 2/5 converts to exactly 0.4, so the two values are equal, not one strictly less than the other — a candidate who assumes a fraction is automatically bigger than a similar-looking decimal without converting it would miss this. 7/10 ≤ 0.6 is false because 7/10 converts to 0.7, which is bigger than 0.6; a candidate who misplaces the decimal point and converts 7/10 as 0.07 would wrongly believe this statement is true.
- (d) 2³ × 5² — Method: divide repeatedly by the smallest prime number, then write any repeated prime using a power. Working: 200 ÷ 2 = 100, 100 ÷ 2 = 50, 50 ÷ 2 = 25, 25 ÷ 5 = 5, and 5 is prime, so 200 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 5 × 5, written as 2³ × 5². 2² × 5³ swaps the two powers, giving 4 × 125 = 500, not 200. 2³ × 5 leaves out one of the two 5s, giving 8 × 5 = 40, not 200. 2 × 5³ leaves out two of the three 2s, giving 2 × 125 = 250, not 200. Answer: 2³ × 5².
- (b) 5.2 × 10⁶ — Method: write the digits as a coefficient that is at least 1 and less than 10, then count the places the decimal point moves to reach that position. Working: the digits give a coefficient of 5.2, and the decimal point travels from the end of 5,200,000 until it sits between the 5 and the 2, a move of 6 places. Answer: 5.2 × 10⁶. The distractors: 52 × 10⁵ is the same amount but not in standard form, because 52 is not less than 10; 5.2 × 10⁵ comes from counting the five zeros in 5,200,000 rather than the six places the decimal point moves; 5.2 × 10⁻⁶ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left.
- (d) 11/12 — Convert both mixed numbers to improper fractions with a common denominator. 2 3/4 = 11/4, which is 33/12, and 1 5/6 = 11/6, which is 22/12. Subtracting, 33/12 − 22/12 gives 11/12, already in its simplest form. Forgetting to borrow, and instead subtracting the fraction parts the other way round to avoid a negative, 10/12 − 9/12 gives 1/12; adding that to the whole-number difference of 1 gives 13/12. Subtracting only the fraction parts, 9/12 − 10/12, and reporting just the size of that difference gives 1/12, which ignores the whole numbers altogether. Adding the two improper fractions instead of subtracting them, 33/12 + 22/12, gives 55/12. So 2 3/4 − 1 5/6 = 11/12.
- (d) 636 g — Let x = 0.636363... . Since two digits repeat, multiply by 100: 100x = 63.636363... . Subtracting removes the recurring part exactly: 100x − x = 63.636363... − 0.636363... = 63, so 99x = 63, giving x = 63/99 = 7/11 kg. Converting to grams: 7/11 × 1000 = 7000/11 = 636.3636... g, which rounds to 636 g. Treating the decimal as if it terminated, writing 0.63 as 63/100 kg, gives 630 g when multiplied by 1000 — this drops the recurring part entirely. Subtracting 10x instead of x, using 100x − 10x = 90x = 63, is the wrong power of ten for a two-digit block, giving x = 63/90 = 7/10 kg, which is 700 g. A numerator slip in the subtraction, 63 − 1 = 62 instead of 63, gives x = 62/99 kg, which is 62000/99 = 626.26... g, rounding to 626 g.
- (b) 17 — Roots and powers are worked out first: √25 = 5 and 4² = 16. Division comes next: 12 ÷ 3 = 4. Then addition and subtraction, left to right: 5 + 16 − 4 = 17. A candidate who treated 4² as 4 × 2 = 8, multiplying the base by the exponent instead of squaring it, worked out 5 + 8 − 4 = 9. A candidate who did not evaluate the root and used 25 itself worked out 25 + 16 − 4 = 37. A candidate who ignored the priority of division and worked through 5 + 16 − 12 ÷ 3 strictly left to right got 5 + 16 = 21, then 21 − 12 = 9, then 9 ÷ 3 = 3.
- (c) £384.00 — Adding 20% VAT means multiplying the price by 1.2: £320 × 1.2 = £384.00. Treating the 20% as a flat £20 rather than a percentage of the price, £320 + £20, gives £340.00. Working out the VAT amount alone, £320 × 0.2 = £64.00, and stopping there without adding it back to the original price gives just the VAT, not the total price. Misplacing the decimal point and using 2% instead of 20%, £320 × 1.02, gives £326.40.
- (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.
- (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.
- (b) 28 — Method: count the ordered choices with the product rule and then correct for the double counting, because the two captains have equal standing and so a pair is the same pair whichever captain is named first. Working: there are 8 players who could be named first and 7 who could be named second, giving 8 × 7 = 56 ordered choices; each pair has been counted twice, once in each order, so the number of pairs is 56 ÷ 2 = 28. Answer: 28. The distractors: 56 comes from stopping at 8 × 7 and never halving, which counts each pair of captains twice; 64 comes from working out 8 × 8, which allows the same player to be chosen as both captains; 16 comes from multiplying the 8 players by the 2 captaincies instead of pairing the players with one another.
- (a) 2.5 × 10⁷ — Method: place the decimal point so that the coefficient is at least 1 and less than 10, then count the places it has moved. Working: the digits give a coefficient of 2.5, and the decimal point travels from the end of 25,000,000 until it sits between the 2 and the 5, a move of 7 places. Answer: 2.5 × 10⁷. The distractors: 25 × 10⁶ is the same area but not in standard form, because the coefficient must be less than 10; 2.5 × 10⁸ comes from counting the eight digits of 25,000,000 instead of the seven places the decimal point moves; 2.5 × 10⁻⁷ comes from making the index negative because the decimal point was carried to the left.
- (b) 2² × 3 × 5 — Repeatedly divide 60 by prime numbers: 60 ÷ 2 = 30, 30 ÷ 2 = 15, 15 ÷ 3 = 5, and 5 is itself prime. So 60 is 2 × 2 × 3 × 5, which in index notation is 2² × 3 × 5. Stopping the factor tree after only three divisions and writing 2 × 3 × 5 misses that the 2 divides in twice, and gives only 30, not 60. Squaring the 3 as well as the 2 gives 2² × 3² × 5, which comes to 180, far too big. Squaring the 5 instead of the 2 gives 2 × 3 × 5², which comes to 150, also too big. So 60 = 2² × 3 × 5.
- (a) 7 — Convert the mixed number to an improper fraction: 5 1/4 = 21/4. Dividing by 3/4 means multiplying by its reciprocal, 4/3: 21/4 × 4/3 gives 84/12, which simplifies to 7. So exactly 7 complete pieces of 3/4 m can be cut. Ignoring the 1/4 m and dividing only the whole number, 5 ÷ 3/4, gives 20/3, which is 6 complete pieces with some wood left over. Multiplying by 3/4 instead of its reciprocal, 21/4 × 3/4, gives 63/16, which is 3 complete pieces. Misreading 5 1/4 as the fraction 5/4, then dividing by 3/4, gives 5/3, which is only 1 complete piece. So 7 complete pieces can be cut from the plank.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.