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) 9 — Method: factors come in pairs that multiply to give the number, so work through the pairs in order; a factor paired with itself is counted only once. Working: the pairs are 1 × 100, 2 × 50, 4 × 25, 5 × 20 and 10 × 10. The first four pairs give eight different factors, and the last pair adds only one more, so the factors are 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50 and 100. Answer: 9. The distractors: 10 comes from counting the pair 10 × 10 as two separate factors; 8 comes from leaving 1 out of the list, on the view that 1 is not a proper factor; 4 comes from writing 100 = 2² × 5² and multiplying the two indices together instead of adding 1 to each index first.
- (d) x⁴ — Method: dividing two powers of the same letter subtracts the index of the divisor from the index of the term being divided. Working: six factors of x on the top and two on the bottom cancel in pairs, leaving 6 − 2 = 4 factors of x. Answer: x⁴. The distractors: x³ comes from dividing the indices, 6 ÷ 2, instead of subtracting them; x⁸ comes from adding the indices, 6 + 2, as though the powers were being multiplied; x¹² comes from multiplying the indices, 6 × 2, as though a power were being raised to a power.
- (c) −1 — Method: find each cube root separately, keeping its sign, and then add the two results. Working: (−3) × (−3) × (−3) = −27, so ∛(−27) = −3, and 2 × 2 × 2 = 8, so ∛8 = 2. Adding gives −3 + 2 = −1. Answer: −1. The distractors: 5 comes from taking the cube root of a negative number as positive, giving 3 + 2; −5 comes from reading the minus sign as applying to the whole sum and working out −(3 + 2); −6 comes from multiplying the two roots, −3 × 2, instead of adding them.
- (b) 4/9 — Method: double the butter part of the ratio, keeping flour the same, find the new total, then write butter's part over the new total. Working: the new ratio is flour : butter = 5 : 4, since butter doubles from 2 to 4. New total = 5 + 4 = 9. Fraction of butter = 4/9. Answer: 4/9. 2/9 comes from forgetting to double the butter part and using the original value 2 over the new total of 9. 4/7 comes from doubling the butter part correctly to 4 but keeping the old total of 7 instead of working out the new total. 2/5 comes from using the original ratio 5:2 directly as butter over flour without doubling anything.
- (a) 1/16 — Method: terms can only be subtracted once they share a denominator, so write every term over the largest denominator, 16, and then subtract the numerators in order from left to right. Working: 1 = 16/16, 1/2 = 8/16, 1/4 = 4/16 and 1/8 = 2/16, so the numerators give 16 − 8 − 4 − 2 − 1 = 1, over a denominator of 16. Answer: 1/16. The distractors: 1/8 comes from stopping one term early, after 16 − 8 − 4 − 2 = 2; 3/16 comes from a sign slip on the last term, adding it instead of subtracting it, which gives 2 + 1 = 3; 15/16 comes from working from the right-hand end as though the last four terms were bracketed together, so that only a single sixteenth is taken away from 1.
- (d) 1 × 10⁷ seconds — Method: the time for a journey is the distance divided by the speed, so round each number to 1 significant figure and then divide; dividing numbers in standard form means dividing the coefficients and subtracting the indices. Working: 3.1 × 10¹⁵ rounds to 3 × 10¹⁵ and 2.998 × 10⁸ rounds to 3 × 10⁸; 3 ÷ 3 = 1 for the coefficients, and 15 − 8 = 7 for the indices. Answer: about 1 × 10⁷ seconds. The distractors: 3 × 10⁷ seconds comes from subtracting the indices correctly but leaving the coefficient as 3 instead of dividing 3 by 3; 1 × 10⁻⁷ seconds comes from dividing the speed by the distance instead of the distance by the speed; 9 × 10²³ seconds comes from multiplying the two quantities instead of dividing them, since 3 × 3 = 9 and 15 + 8 = 23.
- (c) 7/30 — Let x = 0.2333... . Because only the 3 recurs, use two multiples of x that line up the recurring part exactly: 10x = 2.333... and 100x = 23.333... . Subtracting removes the recurring tail completely: 100x − 10x = 23.333... − 2.333... = 21, so 90x = 21, giving x = 21/90 = 7/30. Treating the decimal as if it terminated after two places, writing 0.23 as 23/100, ignores that the 3 carries on forever. Misreading which digits recur — treating 0.2333... as if the block '23' repeated, giving 0.232323... — leads to x = 23/99, which is a different, larger recurring decimal from the one given. A numerator slip in the subtraction, computing 22 instead of 21, gives x = 22/90 = 11/45.
- (c) 3 or −5 — Method: a point a fixed distance from another can lie on either side of it, so move the given distance in each direction from the starting point. Working: moving 4 units to the right gives −1 + 4 = 3, and moving 4 units to the left gives −1 − 4 = −5. Answer: 3 or −5. The distractors: 5 or −3 comes from starting at 1 instead of −1, giving 1 + 4 and 1 − 4; 3 only comes from moving to the right and forgetting that the point could lie to the left as well; 4 or −4 comes from measuring the distance from zero instead of from point A, which just repeats the given distance.
- (a) 5 — 16 + 9 = 25, then √25 = 5. Splitting the root over the addition instead gives √16 = 4 and √9 = 3, then 4 + 3 = 7 — but a root does not split over a sum like this. Multiplying those two roots instead of adding them gives 4 × 3 = 12. Taking the negative square root instead of the positive one gives −5.
- (c) 7 + 4√3 — Expand the brackets fully: (2 + √3)² = 2² + 2 × 2 × √3 + (√3)² = 4 + 4√3 + 3. Adding the two whole-number terms, 4 + 3 = 7, gives 7 + 4√3. Using (a + b)² = a² + b² and skipping the middle cross term entirely gives just 4 + 3 = 7, with no surd term at all. Treating (√3)² as if it stayed √3 rather than becoming 3, then merging it with the existing surd term, gives 4 + 5√3. Squaring only the surd term correctly but carrying the whole-number term as 2 instead of squaring it to 4 gives 2 + 3 + 4√3 = 5 + 4√3.
- (d) 2/25 — Method: write the decimal over 100 using its two decimal places, then simplify. Working: 0.08 = 8/100 = 2/25 (dividing both numerator and denominator by 4). Answer: 2/25. The student's fraction, 8/10, comes from ignoring the zero in the tenths column and reading 0.08 as though it were 0.8; it simplifies to 4/5. 1/125 comes from writing the decimal over 1000 instead of 100, as if there were three decimal places. 25/2 comes from flipping the correct fraction upside down.
- (d) 15 — Use √a × √b = √(ab): √20 × √12 = √(20 × 12) = √240. Since 15² = 225 and 16² = 256, and 240 is a little closer to 225 than to 256, √240 is a little under 15.5 — in fact √240 ≈ 15.49, which rounds to 15. Adding the two roots instead of multiplying them, √20 + √12 ≈ 4.47 + 3.46 ≈ 7.94, rounds to 8, but the question asks for the product, not the sum. Multiplying 20 by 12 and stopping there, without ever taking a square root, leaves 240, which is the number under the root, not its value. Rounding each root to the nearest whole number BEFORE multiplying — √20 ≈ 4 and √12 ≈ 3 — gives 4 × 3 = 12, a cruder estimate that loses accuracy by rounding twice instead of once.
- (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.
- (a) 1/3 — Method: find the total fraction eaten, then subtract it from the whole pizza. Working: together they eat 5/12 + 3/12 = 8/12, so the fraction left is 12/12 − 8/12 = 4/12 = 1/3. Answer: 1/3. 2/3 comes from giving the fraction eaten instead of the fraction left. 7/12 comes from only subtracting Ben's slices and forgetting Mia's. 1/2 comes from comparing the 4 slices left with the 8 slices eaten, 4/8, a part-to-part comparison instead of comparing with the whole pizza of 12 slices.
- (c) 24 — Method: round each number to the nearest whole number, then multiply the rounded values. Working: 6.4 rounds to 6 (nearest whole number) and 3.9 rounds to 4 (nearest whole number). 6 × 4 = 24. Answer: 24. 18 comes from rounding 3.9 down to 3 instead of up to the nearest whole number, 4, giving 6 × 3. 28 comes from rounding 6.4 up to 7 instead of down to the nearest whole number, 6, giving 7 × 4. 25 is the exact value of 6.4 × 3.9, which is 24.96, rounded to the nearest whole number after multiplying, rather than estimated by rounding first.
Build your own mix at the worksheet builder.