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) 5 — 0.2 = 1/5, and turning the fraction upside down gives the reciprocal 5/1 = 5. Writing −0.2 mistakes the reciprocal for the negative of the number. Working out 1 − 0.2 = 0.8 mistakes the reciprocal for subtracting the number from 1. Writing 0.5 is the reciprocal of 2, not of 0.2 — a place-value slip that drops the decimal, since 1 ÷ 0.2 = 5 while 1 ÷ 2 = 0.5.
- (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.
- (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) 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) 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) £6 — First find 30% of £200, which is £60, then find 10% of that: £60 × 0.1 = £6. Adding the two percentages together instead of applying them one after the other, 10% + 30% = 40%, and finding 40% of £200 gives £80. Finding 30% of £200 = £60 correctly but stopping before applying the second percentage leaves £60 as the final answer. Finding only 10% of the original £200, ignoring the 30% entirely, gives £20.
- (d) £4.80 — Method: find the error interval, then check which value falls outside it. Working: half of 20p is 10p, so the actual cost, c, satisfies £4.50 ≤ c < £4.70. £4.80 is above £4.70, so it could not be the actual cost. Answer: £4.80. (£4.50 is a genuine possible cost — it sits at the included lower boundary. £4.65 is a genuine possible cost, below the £4.70 upper boundary. £4.55 is a genuine possible cost, well inside the interval.)
- (b) No, the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg — Method: find the upper bound of the true mass and compare it with the weight limit. Working: the display is correct to the nearest 5 kg, so half of 5 kg is 2.5 kg, and the true mass, m kg, satisfies 847.5 ≤ m < 852.5. Part of that interval lies above 850 kg, so the parcels are not definitely within the limit. Answer: the true mass could be as high as 852.5 kg, which is above the limit. ("Yes, the display reads 850 kg, which is not above the limit" compares the limit with the displayed value instead of with the largest value the true mass could take. "Yes, the true mass is at least 847.5 kg and at most 850 kg" uses the correct half unit below but caps the interval at the limit instead of at 852.5 kg. "No, 850 kg on the display rounds up to 855 kg" wrongly treats the displayed value as if it rounds again.)
- (d) 1/16 — Method: a negative index means the reciprocal of the power, so 2⁻⁴ is 1 divided by 2⁴. Working: 2⁴ = 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 = 16, so the value is 1/16. Answer: 1/16. The distractors: −16 comes from reading the negative index as a minus sign on the result; 16 comes from ignoring the minus sign and working out 2⁴; 1/8 comes from multiplying the base by the index, 2 × 4, and writing 1 over that product.
- (c) 6 — The units digit must be even, so it can be 2 or 8, giving 2 choices. The tens digit can then be any of the remaining 3 digits, since one digit has been used for the units. Multiply: 2 × 3 = 6. 12 comes from working out how many two-digit numbers can be made in total, 4 × 3 = 12, ignoring the requirement that the number is even. 8 comes from choosing the units digit from 2 options and then wrongly allowing any of the 4 digits again for the tens digit, 2 × 4 = 8, which lets a digit repeat. 2 comes from counting only the choices for the units digit and forgetting the tens digit.
- (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.
- (b) £37 — One box costs £4 + £3 = £7. Five boxes cost 5 × £7 = £35. Adding the single £2 delivery fee gives £35 + £2 = £37. A candidate who added the £2 delivery fee to each box instead of once for the whole order worked out 5 × (£7 + £2) = 5 × £9 = £45. A candidate who forgot the £3 markup and used the shop's buying price worked out 5 × £4 + £2 = £22. A candidate who added the £3 markup only once, after multiplying the buying price by 5, worked out 5 × £4 + £3 + £2 = £25.
- (c) 7 × 10⁻⁸ — '100 times smaller' means dividing by 100 = 10². Dividing 7 × 10⁻⁶ by 10² means subtracting 2 from the exponent: −6 − 2 = −8, giving 7 × 10⁻⁸. A candidate who multiplied by 100 instead of dividing added 2 to the exponent, getting 7 × 10⁻⁴. A candidate who divided by 10 instead of 100 subtracted only 1 from the exponent, getting 7 × 10⁻⁵. A candidate who did not apply the scale factor at all left the diameter as 7 × 10⁻⁶, the same as the red blood cell.
- (d) £120 — Total parts = 5 + 3 = 8, so one part is worth 320 ÷ 8 = 40 pounds. The cake sale is 3 parts, so it raised 3 × 40 = 120 pounds. £200 comes from working out the raffle's share, 5 × 40, instead of the cake sale's share. £40 comes from finding the value of one part but forgetting to multiply by 3. £192 comes from dividing the total by 5 instead of 8 to find the value of one part, 320 ÷ 5 = 64, then multiplying by 3, 3 × 64 = 192.
- (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.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.